The problem with this generous interpretation is that Trump is literally planning to seize powers that the Constitution does not give to the president, and he has been laying the groundwork for this recently through the federal budget process.
In recent months, Trump has No The president and his advisers described the plan as using “impounds,” a technical term that means withholding funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose, and would spend the money as directed by Congress, which holds financial powers under the Constitution.
“Restoring seizure powers would help stop unnecessary spending and crush the Deep State,” Trump’s campaign website states. Perhaps to those who support smaller government, those sound like reasonable outcomes. Who can oppose a few savings here and there?
But what it means in practice is more troubling: President Trump can unilaterally repeal any program he doesn’t like or whose beneficiaries anger him, regardless of Congressional direction.
Judging by recent comments from the candidate and his aides, Trump’s proposed cuts include clean energy subsidies, international aid programs and funding for the World Health Organization. Trump told Fox News last week that he could also cut the Department of Education, the Department of the Interior and “environmental agencies” altogether.
Given Trump’s attacks on the safety net last time he was president, it wouldn’t be surprising if he tried to unilaterally cut funding for other programs, like Medicaid and nutrition assistance for low-income infants and pregnant women. Nor would it surprise anyone if he used this power for revenge, as he did when he threatened to withhold life-saving pandemic aid if ungrateful state governors didn’t cave to him.
To be clear, all of this is illegal.
President Trump has tried to withhold funds appropriated by Congress before. Remember when he withheld aid to Ukraine because he wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky to do him a “favor” (providing evidence of the Biden family’s guilt)? The Government Accountability Office determined that was an illegal withholding.
Former President Richard M. Nixon also tried and failed on multiple occasions to halt spending, and like Trump, he believed he had the power to reshape policy and budget decisions, regardless of Congressional statutes or constitutional checks and balances.
Nixon’s seizure efforts were challenged in federal court, and according to Georgetown University law professor David Super, the courts ruled against Nixon every time. The most famous cases were: Train vs. New York CityThe case, filed after President Nixon refused to use Clean Water Act funds for water and sewer systems, made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, where all the justices agreed that a president’s personal policy preferences could not override congressionally mandated appropriations.
Trump says he has a plan to avoid this unpleasant precedent: persuade Congress to repeal a law called the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. But because that law was passed after the Nixon impoundments, even if it were completely repealed, what Trump calls the Nixon impoundments… would still be illegal.
Indeed, one of the consequences of the 1974 law was to give the president some substantial power. more The power to withhold funds from time to time (essentially creating a process that allows the President to temporarily withhold funds if he formally asks Congress to amend existing law to remove the funding).
So Trump’s proposed changes would actually have the opposite effect of what he wants: They would reduce his power to seize funds, not expand it. (Hey, who would have thought Trump was a law maven?)
Either way, Trump has signaled to Congress that he plans a constitutional showdown: Regardless of what the courts have ruled in the past and regardless of what our founding documents say, Trump believes he should personally have the power to set the budget for the entire federal government.
When asked about these plans, many Republicans essentially just shrug. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told his colleagues at The Washington Post that garnishment is just “a tool in the toolbox” to cut spending.
Perhaps that’s not surprising: Lawmakers have been willing to forego other constitutional duties in the past, such as declaring war or regulating foreign commerce. Trump’s plan to seize spending power would satisfy both his own desire to seize power and Congress’ desire to cede power.
Everyone is a winner! Except Democracy.
