Can the president override Congress on spending?

Summary

Planet Money: Can the President Override Congress on Spending? Episode Released: February 19, 2025

In this compelling episode of Planet Money, host Sarah Gonzalez delves into a pressing constitutional debate: Does the President have the authority to override Congress on federal spending? Through an exploration of historical precedents, legal frameworks, and contemporary political maneuvers, the episode unpacks the complexities surrounding presidential impoundment power and its implications for the U.S. economy and governance.

Introduction to the Federal Spending Clash

Sarah Gonzalez opens the discussion by highlighting President Donald Trump's recent attempts to dismantle the Agency for International Development (USAID) and freeze billions in federal grants. These funds support a wide array of state-level initiatives, including purchasing new school buses, funding health benefits for childcare workers, wildfire prevention, and medical research. The legal contention revolves around whether the President can legally spend less than the amount appropriated by Congress, a debate rooted in the Constitution’s allocation of the “power of the purse” to Congress.

"The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides how much money the US spends." – Sarah Gonzalez [00:17]

Understanding Impoundment and the Impoundment Control Act

The central theme of the episode is impoundment—the President’s ability to withhold or delay the spending of funds appropriated by Congress. Sarah Gonzalez explains the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was enacted in response to President Nixon's extensive use of impoundment to subvert congressional spending decisions.

"The Impoundment Control Act… controls how the president can impound funds. You can impound funds, right? It's not that impoundment is not allowed, it's allowed, but in this controlled way." – Sarah Gonzalez [13:00]

Historical Context and Precedents

Law Professor Zachary Price from the University of California, College of Law, provides historical insights, referencing instances of impoundment dating back to President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. Jefferson's decision not to fully utilize funds allocated for gunboats in the Mississippi River demonstrated early executive discretion in spending.

"If Congress appropriated more funding than was needed to run the government, the president could refuse to waste the extra funds and instead return the money to the general treasury." – Zachary Price [04:34]

However, Sarah Gonzalez notes that such historical impoundments were typically within the bounds of the law, often involving scenarios where the appropriated amount was an upper limit rather than a mandate.

"The law said Thomas Jefferson could, order quote, a number not exceeding 15 gunboats using, quote, a sum not exceeding $50,000. So baked into the law, it was always optional." – Sarah Gonzalez [08:58]

Trump’s Challenge to Established Norms

The episode transitions to present-day actions, where President Trump has attempted to bypass the Impoundment Control Act by freezing funds without submitting a proposal to Congress—a move that legal experts argue is unconstitutional. Unlike previous presidents who engaged in a back-and-forth with Congress regarding spending priorities, Trump’s approach mirrors Nixon’s broader and more systematic use of impoundment as a policy tool.

"This was more like what Nixon tried to do, using impoundments as a broader policy tool, withholding money for policies he disagreed with." – Sarah Gonzalez [15:08]

Legal Repercussions and Judicial Responses

The episode highlights the judicial pushback against Trump's actions. Multiple judges, including those appointed by Trump himself, have blocked the funding freezes and ordered the administration to release the funds. For instance, a judge in Rhode Island condemned the administration for not complying with court orders to release funds.

"The judge in Rhode Island found that they had violated his order in numerous respects and has issued a supplemental order admonishing them to start complying right away." – Sarah Gonzalez [22:19]

Despite these rulings, reports indicate that significant portions of funding remain inaccessible, leading to a situation where state agencies and nonprofits are unable to utilize granted funds vital for their operations.

"State agencies in Pennsylvania... have not been able to access $2.1 billion in grant funding that was suspended or restricted." – Sarah Gonzalez [22:40]

Constitutional Crisis and Expert Opinions

David Super, a law and economics professor at Georgetown, voices his concerns about the constitutional implications of Trump's actions, describing them as a potential constitutional crisis.

"So, as a teacher, I couldn't be more grateful for their timing with this. As a lawyer and a citizen, I'm troubled by it." – David Super [19:37]

Super and other legal scholars argue that the Constitution not only provides Congress with the authority to set spending ceilings but also enforces spending floors, ensuring that funds appropriated by Congress must be spent unless properly rescinded through established processes.

"The floor's there in the laws that say you must spend this money, and in the Constitution, it says you must take care that the laws be faithfully executed." – Sarah Gonzalez [20:07]

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump, reiterated that the President does not possess unilateral authority to refuse spending, aligning with longstanding judicial interpretations that reinforce congressional supremacy in fiscal matters.

"Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend." – Brett Kavanaugh [implied via David Super] [20:22]

Trump’s Legal Arguments and Court Decisions

Trump’s legal team contends that historical impoundment practices do not equate to outright spending refusal and that Presidents have inherent powers to manage federal funds. They argue that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and that existing court rulings are too narrow to address the broader claims of executive financial autonomy.

"They say that even that one Nixon ruling was more specific to the particulars of Nixon's case." – David Super [20:22]

Despite these arguments, courts have consistently upheld the premise that executive actions to withhold appropriated funds without congressional consent are unconstitutional. Judges have mandated the release of frozen funds, although compliance remains inconsistent.

Ongoing Legal Battles and Current Status

As of the episode's release, several lawsuits are active, with states and nonprofits seeking restitution for withheld funds. The administration’s partial compliance, such as rescinding a memo declaring the funding freeze, has done little to alleviate the blockage, leading to continued legal contention and financial uncertainty for affected entities.

"President Trump is not alone in exercising this authority. George H.W. Bush utilized this authority. President Clinton, President Reagan did too. So there is precedent." – Rachel Snyderman [14:57]

However, Trump’s deviation from the established impoundment processes has ignited fears of e eroding the checks and balances integral to the U.S. financial and political systems.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Crossroads

The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the potential constitutional ramifications of the current administration's actions. David Super characterizes the situation as edging towards a constitutional crisis, emphasizing the critical need for adherence to established legal frameworks to maintain the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency.

"These actions for him rise to the level of a constitutional crisis." – David Super [23:26]

Ultimately, the episode underscores the fragility of constitutional norms in the face of executive overreach and the enduring struggle to define the limits of presidential power in fiscal governance.

Key Takeaways

• Impoundment Power: Historically, Presidents could withhold funds within the limits set by Congress, primarily when the appropriated amount was an upper ceiling rather than a mandated expenditure.
• Legal Framework: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established processes to control presidential impoundment, requiring coordination with Congress.
• Current Conflict: President Trump's attempt to freeze funds without congressional approval challenges established legal norms, prompting judicial intervention and legal debates.
• Constitutional Implications: Legal experts warn that such actions could lead to a constitutional crisis, undermining the separation of powers and congressional authority over federal spending.

Notable Quotes

• "The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides how much money the US spends." – Sarah Gonzalez [00:17]
• "If Congress appropriated more funding than was needed to run the government, the president could refuse to waste the extra funds and instead return the money to the general treasury." – Zachary Price [04:34]
• "These actions for him rise to the level of a constitutional crisis." – David Super [23:26]

For more in-depth analysis and updates on this evolving story, visit the Planet Money website and subscribe to their newsletter.

Transcript

[Capital One Ad]

This message comes from Capital One. Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See capitalone.com bank for details. Capital One NA member FDIC.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

This is Planet Money from NPR. President Donald Trump has attempted to dismantle a federal agency, usaid, the Agency for International Development. He's attempted to freeze bill billions of dollars in grant money that goes to states for everything from new school buses to paying for the health benefits of childcare workers, wildfire prevention. He's attempted to freeze federal funds for medical and public health research. And now whether Trump has the power to cut off money that has been appropriated by Congress is being litigated by the courts. Several judges have blocked big parts of Trump's efforts, ordered the administration to release the funds they froze, though there have been many examples of funds not being released. And you know, the Constitution is pretty clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides how much money the US Spends. So generally it's been understood that the president cannot spend more money than Congress has agreed and voted to spend. But can the president spend less money than Congress wants? Hello and welcome to Planet Money. I'm Sarah Gonzalez. And that is the thing being debated right now. Whether a president can spend less than Congress wants comes down to something called impoundment and the Impoundment Control Act. Basically when and how a president can impound funds like take money away that have already been appropriated. Today on the show what is empowerment? How has it been used in the past? And what do the judges and legal scholars who study the Constitution and impoundments in particular have to say about the legality of what the Trump administration is trying to do.

[Capital One Ad]

This message comes from bluehost, making it easy to create a website fast. Their AI tools can help you customize, optimize and launch in minutes. And with 247 security so you can focus on business, not hackers.

[Bluehost Ad]

Get your site [e-mail] this message comes from Capital One. Say hello to stress free subscription management. Easily track, block or cancel recurring charges right from the Capital One mobile app. Simple as that. Learn [e-mail] subscriptions terms and conditions apply. This message comes from Capital One. With the Venture X card, earn unlimited double miles on everything you buy, plus get premium benefits at a collection of hotels when booking through Capital One Travel. What's in your wallet? Terms apply [e-mail] when the Trump administration.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Ordered all of the funding freezes, it upended thousands of contracts, including with U.S. businesses and nonprofits. For example, U.S. farmers grow a lot of the corn and soy and food that the agency USAID sends to other countries. Last week, the USAID Office of Inspector General released a report that said that half a billion dollars worth of food was at risk of just spoiling in warehouses, at ports, in transit. The USAID inspector general was fired the day after that report came out. Now, the US Constitution says that the president has a duty to take care that laws be faithfully executed. And when Congress debates and decides to fund something, that's a law. But before Trump was reelected, he was saying that he didn't think Congress had the final say here. In a campaign video, Trump said that as president, he should have the power to not spend money that Congress has.

[Zachary Price]

Appropriated for 200 years. Under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Impoundment. Trump was saying that he should be able to impound the money.

[Zachary Price]

Very simply, this meant that if Congress provided more funding than was needed to run the government, the president could refuse to waste the extra funds and instead return the money to the general treasury.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Okay, we should note that the system kind of already allows for this, according to a legal scholar we spoke to who said that, you know, if the government can, like, get the job done with less money than Congress appropriates, that's totally okay sometimes. So, like, If Congress appropriates $15 billion to build a new aircraft carrier, but the contractor can get it done for, I don't know, $14 billion, that's fine. The federal government is not gonna be like, oh, no, no, no, you must charge us the full $15 billion. Right. The important thing is that the aircraft carrier that Congress wanted just has to get built. A president cannot override Congress and say, well, you know, I, as president, don't think we should even have an air at all. At least that is what the Impoundment control Act of 1974 says. It's the law that controls the president's impoundment power. But Trump thinks that law is unconstitutional.

[Zachary Price]

This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the separation of powers.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

President Trump and his team, including the person who is now general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget, which is the agency that oversees the release of federal funds, say that impoundment is an inherent power of the president because they say presidents have historically exercised this power. They have been pointing out what they call hundreds of years of examples of presidents Impounding funds before Congress, like, reined in the practice. Basically, they're saying that impoundment was, like, kind of chill in the early days.

[David Super]

Well, I'm not sure I'd say chill, but I. But I.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

You wouldn't. You sound like that's, like, definitely something you would say. Zachary Price is a law professor at the University of California College of Law in San Francisco who has written about historical impoundment practices, including examples that Trump's team has been citing. So we will start with what is likely the most high profile instance of impoundment. In 1803, with Thomas Jefferson, Congress had appropriated up to $50,000 to build 15 gunboats in the Mississippi because the US thought that it might have to fight France over the Mississippi River. But after Congress appropriated the gunboat money, things took a turn with France.

[David Super]

Jefferson thought the threat that had warranted this project had disappeared. So he didn't spend the money, didn't build the ships, or at least didn't build all of them, and then just told Congress in his annual message and they came back, you know, here's what I did. And, you know, this is.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Why was Congress just meeting a lot less often in the 1800s. And so they went away for, like, months and months. And he was like, I don't know what to tell you. Like, things are different and we don't need all these gunboats anymore.

[David Super]

Yeah, certainly in the very early republic, Congress would come for a session and then everyone would go home back to their states.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Yeah, it's 1803. Congress was meeting once a year. And after Congress voted for the gunboats and then went home, this big thing happened. The US Bought Louisiana from France and a bunch of other land, the Louisiana Purchase. So France was no longer going to be near US Territory, no longer on the Mississippi. And we were cool with France. Now we weren't going to go to war with them anymore. So Jefferson is like, okay, well, I'm not going to build those gunboats in the Mississippi. Then. Trump's team has specifically pointed to this gunboat funding example to say, see, the President does have the power to not spend money. But here's the thing about this Thomas Jefferson gunboat example. Zachary says Congress never told the President he had to spend $50,000 on 15 gunboats.

[David Super]

Right. So that one, the law just said you can spend up to X amount on this purpose. But the law didn't say you must spend at least this much. It said no more than.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Yeah, the actual law said Thomas Jefferson could, order, quote, a number not exceeding 15 gunboats using, quote, a sum not exceeding $50,000. So baked into the law, it was always optional.

[David Super]

So a lot of examples have that sort of character. And that's not really. Jefferson would say, I'm just faithfully executing the statute. Or at least you can understand what he's doing that way.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

So you're saying that all the examples of times that presidents used empowerment, there was always some little language that was like, a little bit more like, you don't have to spend all this money. You just can spend up to this amount.

[David Super]

It's not always quite as clear as Jefferson, but you do have a pattern of examples sort of like that.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Historically, Zachary says presidents weren't making the argument that they have the constitutional power to override Congress and impound funds.

[David Super]

Generally. Presidents weren't really making that argument. They're instead involved in a kind of back and forth with Congress.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Zachary says presidents would just kind of be like, come on, Congress, let me do this. And then Congress would give in. Like, there was spending for rivers and harbors that Ulysses S. Grant thought was wasteful. There was money for a weapons program that John F. Kennedy didn't want to spend after World War II. But in both cases, after some controversy, Congress just gave in to the president. So in that way, yeah. Zachary says there was this, like, tacit approval by Congress to sometimes not spend money. But it's not like there was a place where all the rules were spelled out around this one way or another. That didn't happen until Richard Nixon became president, because Richard Nixon took impoundments to a whole new level.

[Rachel Snyderman]

Well, the distinction with Nixon is also the frequency and the scope of at which he impounded funds. I mean, in 1973, impounded nearly one third of all discretionary spending.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Rachel Snyderman is the Managing Director of Economic Policy at the Bipartisan Policy center, and days before Trump's second inauguration, she published this big impoundments 101 explainer and.

[Rachel Snyderman]

Really refresher of, you know, what are the real checks and balances when it comes to the federal budget process. As we head into a very busy year for fiscal policy and, of course.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

A new administration, the thing that made Richard Nixon's empowerment practice so distinct was really the scale and the scope. Nixon wasn't using impoundment like here and there. He was using impoundment to subvert Congress's will. Like Congress had approved billions of dollars to send to states to build sewage treatment plants. Nixon didn't want that, so he withheld the money. Nixon impounded housing assistance money, community development money. Disaster assistance. And eventually, the people and states who were entitled to the money that Nixon was withholding sued Nixon in a bunch.

[Rachel Snyderman]

Of courts when he impounded funds. There were several court challenges that went even all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the courts were repeatedly upholding the fact that the President did not have the authority to unilaterally make decisions about spending.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

The Supreme Court case was specifically about the sewage treatment plant money that states were supposed to receive from the federal government. The Supreme Court said that the total amount that Congress had appropriated for this had to be spent. Not just any amount, the total amount, because that was the language of the law. All nine justices agreed. Meanwhile, while all this is playing out, Congress is like, all right, I think we gotta get some real ground rules for impoundment now. And they passed the Impoundment control Act of 1974, which, you know, controls how presidents can impound money. You can impound funds, Right. It's not that, like, impoundment is not allowed act. Right. It's just like it's allowed, but, like, in this controlled way.

[Rachel Snyderman]

Yeah. So they cannot do it alone. The president must. They must go through the process and.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Work with Congress under the Empowerment Control Act. Post Nixon, there are now two ways a president can withhold money that Congress has appropriated. Just two ways. The first way is called the deferral process. The president can temporarily defer payments, but with a catch.

[Rachel Snyderman]

The president can choose to defer temporary delay certain spending if they have the explicit intent that they are going to spend all of that funding within the fiscal year. They just don't quite know when.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

One example of spending that can get deferred is disaster assistance money. So we know that hurricane season tends to be towards the end of the fiscal year in September. So maybe you wanna hold off on spending too much disaster money early on so that you have some leftover around hurricane season when you might need it. Right. That's a deferral. The second way a president can withhold funds post Nixon is through something called the rescissions process. They're rescinding the money. Basically, a president goes to Congress and says, here's all the money I don't want to spend that you find people already approved. Congress then has 45 days to look over the president's proposal.

[Rachel Snyderman]

If Congress chooses to do nothing or does not approve that package as a whole or in part, that funding must then be released to federal agencies and spent.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

So Congress decides still?

[Rachel Snyderman]

Congress decides, yes. And throughout this entire time, the Government Accountability Office is kind of serving as the external watchdog to make sure that this is happening.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

And Trump knows how this process is supposed to work, says Rachel, because he followed this exact process. In 2018, when Trump wanted to rescind billions of dollars, he notified Congress. Congress reviewed it all, but then chose not to approve it. And many presidents have impounded funds this way through this process.

[Rachel Snyderman]

President Trump is not alone in exercising this authority. George H.W. bush utilized this authority. President Clinton, President Reagan did too. So there really precedent.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

This time around, though, Trump did not notify Congress. There was no rescissions proposal. So to some legal scholars, the fact that Trump is not following the normal process is about something bigger.

[David Super]

He's clearly after something more than just restraining this funding. He's seeking to make a point about inheritance.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Presidential authority after the break, how Trump is testing the limits of presidential power and what constitutional scholars and the courts are saying about it.

[Capital One Ad]

This message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely and invest. Start your risk free [e-mail] NPR this.

[Bluehost Ad]

Message comes from Discover. Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the last 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn [e-mail] credit card based on the February 2024 NOSN report, support for NPR.

[Capital One Ad]

And the following message come from IXL Learning. IXL Learning uses advanced algorithms to give the right help to each kid, no matter the age or personality. Get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when you sign up [e-mail] NPR this.

[Bluehost Ad]

Message comes from Dell Technologies offering anniversary savings on their most popular tech for a limited time only. Save on select next gen PCs like the XPS 16 powered by Intel Core Ultra processors. Save [e-mail] deals you may remember that.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

In 2019, President Trump withheld money meant for Ukraine without going through Congress. This was when Trump was trying to get the Ukrainian president to investigate the Biden family. Trump was found to have violated the Impoundment Control act back then and the money was eventually released. Now in his second term, Trump is saying, yeah, that whole Empowerment Control act thing, I think it's unconstitutional. Days into Trump's second term, his administration announced that they were temporarily going to not spend billions and billions and up to trillions of dollars on a bunch of stuff that, you know, Democrats and Republicans agreed together to fund. He announced the funding freeze without ever submitting a proposal to Congress. And a bunch of lawsuits followed. Nonprofits have sued, states have sued. States have sued specifically over just the medical research funding. Health organizations that receive funding for USAID programs sued. So to some, this was not like a Thomas Jefferson style saving money on some Mississippi gunboats kind of impoundment. This was more like what Nixon tried to do, using impoundments as a broader policy tool, withholding money for policies he disagreed with. Now, a lot of the Trump funding freezes have been paused while the courts sort everything out. Just like how it went down when Nixon used impoundments this way. But what Trump's team is arguing that Nixon's team did not argue in court is that the President should have this special power to not spend. They're saying, yes, there's a ceiling on spending. The President cannot spend more than Congress appropriates. But they don't think there's a floor for this. I called up a law and economics professor. Do your students call you Professor Super.

[David Super]

Uh, yes.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

Nice. Wade, say your name and title.

[David Super]

I'm David super, and I teach law at Georgetown.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

David Sooper studies the Constitution, teaches legislation, and he actually had the Empowerment Control act on his syllabus when all the funding freezes happened.

[David Super]

So, as a teacher, I couldn't be more grateful for their timing with this. As a lawyer and a citizen, I'm troubled by it.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

So, okay, what about this constitutional claim that the Trump team is making? Is there a place in the Constitution that says, like, yeah, yeah, you can't spend more, but, like, yeah, you could spend less? Or is there a place in the Constitution that says, like, you cannot spend more and you also cannot spend less? Like, is there validity to their claims that, like, it doesn't say in the Constitution that there's a floor which is like, what the argument is, right? Like, the ceiling is there. Don't spend more. But is the floor there?

[David Super]

Yeah, the floor's there. The floor is there in the laws that say you must spend this money, and in the Constitution, it says you must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. You're not taking care that the laws be faithfully executed if the law says spend a million dollars and you refuse.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

To do so, David. And a long, long line of legal scholars and judges appointed by Republicans by Richard Nixon and Donald Trump have said that the Constitution does give Congress the power to set even a spending floor. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who Trump appointed back when he was an appellate judge, he wrote that, quote, even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend. But Trump's legal team has said that the Supreme Court hasn't provided the final word on whether a president has constitutional empowerment power, like inherent impoundment power, just because he's the president. They say that even that one Nixon ruling was more specific to, like, the particulars of Nixon's case. And David super agrees that the Supreme Court did not rule on overall impoundment power, but only because, again, Nixon's team wasn't making that argument in court. So that's the legal stuff in terms of the money. Stuff like the money that the Trump administration has frozen or attempted to freeze. Here's what's happening there. Several judges have at least temporarily blocked just about all of those actions. Some of these judges are Trump appointed judges. Judges. At least one of the judges, yes.

[David Super]

He's been losing in front of Trump judges, Biden judges. It really hasn't mattered.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

These judges have said that the Trump administration needed to unfreeze the money, at least for now. So the money is supposed to be released. The White House even rescinded their initial memo declaring the pause on federal grants and loans. But there are a lot of reports that money is still being held up. One judge said that the Trump administration was still not releasing the funds, which violated a court order.

[David Super]

The judge in Rhode island found that they had violated his order in numerous respects and has issued a supplemental order admonishing them to start complying right away and specifically condemning some of the actions they've taken and some of the arguments they've made to defend their actions.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

State agencies in Pennsylvania still, as of today, have not been able to access $2.1 billion in grant funding that was suspended or restricted. This is according to the governor's office, even though, as they pointed out, multiple federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze this funding. Several nonprofits across the country also have tried to access their federal funding, only to find out it's not there.

[David Super]

Indeed, I talk to people all the time who tell me their funding is frozen. Still, indeed, some people whose funding was frozen after the orders were issued against that. So if the administration is trying to comply, they're not trying very hard, and they're not trying very effectively.

[Sarah Gonzalez]

David super says that these actions for him rise to the level of a constitutional crisis. We did reach out to the White House and to the Office of Management and Budget to ask why some federal funding is still not being released and to get their response to what David super and Zachary Price had to say about the history of impoundments. The White House and OMB did not respond, but the White House press secretary has said that it's actually the courts and the judges stopping Trump's executive actions that are the ones causing the constitutional crisis. If you want even more history and legal arguments around impoundments, check out our latest newslet. There's a link in our show notes and you can [e-mail] planetmoneynewsletter this episode was produced by Willa Rubin and edited by Meg Kramer. It was fact checked by Sam Yellowhorse Kessler and engineered by Robert Rodriguez. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer. I'm Sarah Gonzalez. This is npr. Thanks for listening.

[Bluehost Ad]

Support for NPR and the following message come from Edward Jones what does it mean to be rich? Is it having a million stories to share? Is it having more time to give? Edward Jones's financial advisors will support what matters to you. Edward Jones, Member, SIPC Support for NPR.

[Capital One Ad]

And the following message come from IXL Learning. IXL Learning uses advanced algorithms to give the right help to each kid, no matter the age or personality. Get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when you sign up [e-mail] NPR Support for the following message come from LinkedIn Ads. With LinkedIn Ads, you can reach professionals relevant to your business. Target them by job title, industry, company and more by launching your next campaign with a free $100 ad credit at LinkedIn.com results. Terms and conditions apply.