President-elect Donald Trump is proposing a bold move to curb what he sees as wasteful government spending by utilizing presidential impoundment — a practice where the president can withhold or delay funds that Congress has approved for specific purposes. This plan is raising significant concern in Washington, especially among legal experts and lawmakers, as it challenges long-standing principles of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Impoundment and the Separation of Powers
Impoundment allows the president to refuse or delay spending on certain appropriations approved by Congress. Historically, this practice was used by presidents like Richard Nixon in the 1970s, leading Congress to pass the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which aimed to curtail the president’s ability to withhold funds without Congressional approval. The law asserts that the president must spend funds as directed by Congress and provides mechanisms for Congress to force the president to comply.
However, Trump has consistently argued that this law is unconstitutional and has vowed to reinstate presidential impoundment authority. He has framed it as a way to cut wasteful government spending, claiming that it would allow him to “save a fortune” by targeting unnecessary programs.
Trump’s Legal Challenges and Support for Impoundment
Trump’s allies, including Russ Vought, his nominee for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), support the plan. Vought, who served as acting OMB director in Trump’s first term, has stated that the loss of impoundment authority has been detrimental to the country’s ability to control spending. Vought believes that returning this power to the presidency would help rein in government waste, suggesting that previous presidents used impoundment as a tool to prevent unnecessary expenditures.
Vought’s stance reflects a broader push among Trump’s advisors and supporters, including Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have been tapped to lead a new initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The goal of this department is to eliminate waste, cut down on inefficient government programs, and reduce the federal workforce, although such moves would require Congressional approval to be fully implemented. If they sought to pursue such actions unilaterally, impoundment would be necessary to bypass Congress’s direction on funding.
Constitutional and Political Concerns
Critics, including legal scholars like Georgetown Law Professor Eloise Pasachoff, warn that Trump’s plan to reinstate impoundment authority would cause serious constitutional conflicts. Pasachoff argues that the Impoundment Control Act serves as an essential check on presidential power, ensuring that the executive branch cannot unilaterally override Congress’s power of the purse. The separation of powers is a foundational principle of the U.S. Constitution, and any attempt to bypass Congress’s role in budgeting could lead to a dangerous consolidation of power in the executive branch.
Furthermore, constitutional experts like Andrew Rudalevige argue that impoundment could only be effectively carried out if the president is granted specific authority to withhold funds, which could directly contradict the law. This potential conflict could lead to a significant legal battle between the executive and legislative branches.
The Future of Government Efficiency
While Trump’s proposal seeks to address inefficiencies within the federal government, it also highlights the broader challenge of balancing presidential power with legislative authority. The plan to reintroduce impoundment, combined with Trump’s broader goals to streamline and cut down on federal spending, suggests a deep shift in how the government operates, with potential consequences for the relationship between the presidency and Congress.
If Trump moves forward with this plan, it could lead to a confrontation over the scope of presidential authority and the checks placed on executive power. How Congress responds, and whether the courts will intervene, remains to be seen, but the debate over impoundment is certain to play a significant role in shaping the trajectory of Trump’s second term in office.
