About Our Broken Politics, Broken Media, Broken Republic

If the President can unilaterally impound funds appropriated by Congress and reorganize agencies at will, a fundamental check on executive power disappears.

What Is the Power of the Purse?

The "power of the purse" is one of the most fundamental checks and balances in our Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress—and Congress alone—the power to control federal spending:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

This means that only Congress can decide how federal money is raised and spent. The President proposes a budget, but Congress has the final say. This is a critical check on executive power—without it, a President could simply starve any agency or program he dislikes by refusing to fund it, regardless of what the law requires.

[Article 1, Section 8]

The Constitutional Framework

Our Founding Fathers designed a system of separated powers with specific responsibilities for each branch:

The Legislative Branch (Congress):
- Has the power to lay and collect taxes
- Controls federal spending through appropriations
- Creates laws and establishes agencies

The Executive Branch (President):
- "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
- "he shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
- "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

Our Founding Fathers recognized that the Executive branch would have overwhelming power over the other branches if not limited by Law. This is why Congress was given the power of the purse—to ensure that no President could rule as a monarch or dictator.

[Article 2, Section 2]

What Is Impoundment?

Impoundment occurs when the President refuses to spend money that Congress has appropriated and written into Law. This is a direct violation of the separation of powers because it allows the President to unilaterally override Congressional decisions about how federal funds should be spent.

There is a legal procedure for the President to request "rescission" (i.e., cancellation) of expenditures. Congress must approve such requests. This proper procedure ensures that both branches have a say in how federal money is spent.

Cases Contesting Trump's Executive Orders on Impoundments

Trump has issued many Executive Orders impounding funds appropriated by Congress and written into Law. These actions have resulted in multiple lawsuits, including:

- DOE v. California
- NIH v. APHA
- AIDS Vaccine Advocacy
- And many others

Critically, the proper rescission procedure has not been followed. The President has simply refused to spend money that Congress has lawfully appropriated.

If ruled in Trump's favor, the President would be granted full executive power to spend, or not to spend, appropriations passed by Congress. These cases would shift the power of the purse from Congress to the President.

[About the cases]

Why This Matters: The Destruction of Checks and Balances

If the President can unilaterally decide which laws to fund and which to starve, then Congress becomes irrelevant. The President would have the power to:

- Defund any agency or program he dislikes, regardless of what the law requires
- Override Congressional decisions about national priorities
- Punish states or constituencies that oppose him politically
- Reward allies and donors with favorable funding decisions
- Effectively write his own budget without Congressional approval

This would fundamentally transform our system of government from a constitutional republic with separated powers into an executive-dominated system where the President's will is supreme.

Real-World Impact: What Has Already Happened

The Trump administration has already used impoundment to:

- Withhold funding for environmental programs
- Block appropriated funds for public health initiatives
- Deny resources to agencies investigating corruption
- Punish states and localities that don't align politically
- Redirect funds appropriated for specific purposes to other uses

Each of these actions represents a direct challenge to Congressional authority and the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

Historical Context: Why We Have This Check

The Founders were deeply concerned about executive overreach. They had just fought a war against King George III, who had the power to tax and spend without the consent of the governed. The power of the purse was given to Congress—the branch closest to the people—precisely to prevent this kind of monarchical or dictatorial power.

Throughout American history, attempts by Presidents to usurp the power of the purse have been met with fierce resistance from Congress and the courts. The principle is fundamental: the people's elected representatives control the purse, not the President.

Summary: A Fundamental Check on Power

The power of the purse is not a technicality or a procedural detail. It is one of the most important checks on executive power in our entire constitutional system. Without it, the President becomes a monarch in all but name—able to fund his priorities while starving programs, agencies, and constituencies he dislikes.

If the President can simply refuse to spend money that Congress has lawfully appropriated, then the separation of powers collapses. Congress becomes a mere advisory body, and the President rules supreme.

This is not about partisan politics. It's about preserving the fundamental structure of our republic. Every American, regardless of party affiliation, should be deeply concerned about any attempt to transfer the power of the purse from Congress to the President.