In Washington, a profound shift in how taxpayer money is spent. Will it last?
-
Caitlin Babcock Staff writer
| Washington
Just about anything a president wants to do 鈥� such as go to war, start an infrastructure project, or strengthen law enforcement 鈥� requires financing from Congress.
But increasingly, the government鈥檚 money hasn鈥檛 been going where Congress says it should.
The Trump administration is using unprecedented tactics to test the boundaries of how it can control taxpayer money that Congress has budgeted, threatening one of Congress鈥� core functions under the Constitution 鈥� and one of its strongest checks on executive power.
Why We Wrote This
President Donald Trump is taking more control over federal spending, and Congress is ceding some of its power of the purse. They could be setting a new precedent that permanently expands a president鈥檚 power.
The efforts are a direct assertion of presidential power, often wielded in the name of taming wasteful spending. But the actions also reach into Congress itself.
Under presidential pressure, Congress is slowly upending its own spending process, passing party-line bills that circumvent its normal, bipartisan procedure and give presidents broader leeway. For example, Republicans hope to soon pass a bill that will fund federal immigration enforcement for years in advance.
Supporters of President Donald Trump鈥檚 policy say a president should be able to, for example, stop funds from going to countries that harm the United States鈥� interests, or save money if Congress鈥� goals can be accomplished with fewer funds than they laid aside.
Still, the practice signals a profound shift in how money is spent, raising questions over how or whether taxpayers can hold the government accountable and whether more White House control over spending will become a 鈥渘ew normal鈥� that permanently expands a president鈥檚 power.
In Congress, even some members of President Trump鈥檚 party aren鈥檛 entirely comfortable with the transfer of spending authority.
鈥淩etaining our constitutional authority has always been something that I see as important, and hopefully my colleagues do, too. So I hope that we maintain a balance,鈥� says Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. 鈥淥r else we become more and more irrelevant.鈥�
David Super, a federal budget expert at Georgetown University Law Center, believes that actions over the past year show that the new normal is already here.
鈥淭his changes [the funding process] forever,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f Trump can do it, so can everybody else.鈥�
The administration hasn鈥檛 rejected Congress鈥� budgetary authority wholesale. But since Mr. Trump鈥檚 inauguration more than a year ago, his administration has unilaterally slashed some large categories of spending, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Education.
Mr. Trump and his executive branch have asserted the power to spend as well as to cut, in ways that Congress hasn鈥檛 authorized. Emergency declarations over immigration and energy paved the way for sending military reservists to the Southern border and promoting fossil fuel development.
On some of its actions, the White House has come to Congress after the fact to seek legislative support. Other times it has worked to undercut any legislative role.
Checks and balances
In August 2025, the president sent a request to Congress to cancel nearly $5 billion that Congress had directed be spent on foreign aid.
The Impoundment Control Act says a president must give Congress 45 days to consider any such request. But the White House sent their letter just over 30 days before the fiscal year ended.
The administration touted this as something called a 鈥減ocket rescission鈥�: a procedural loophole promoted by White House budget director Russell Vought. The idea is that by submitting a request to cancel funding with only a few days left in the fiscal year, a president can effectively bypass Congress because the money simply lapses.
A lawsuit seeking to block the maneuver went to the Supreme Court, which sided with the administration. The intended recipients of the relief funds never saw that money.
Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland professor who researches public budgeting, says when actions like pocket rescissions get even a small sign-off from a court, it establishes them as options.
鈥淭hat means that presidents have that power. Not just this president 鈥� all future presidents have this power,鈥� says Dr. Joyce.
That鈥檚 not the only time the administration tried to withhold money Congress has set aside to be spent 鈥� a practice known as impoundment. The Trump White House has tested the limits of what constitutes impoundment by withholding grants and freezing or canceling programs it said conflicted with its priorities.
Mr. Vought has asserted that the Constitution doesn鈥檛 require a president to spend every dollar that Congress appropriates.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a ceiling, not a floor,鈥� he at a July 2025 breakfast hosted by 海角大神.
Some Republicans in Congress make a similar case.
Republican Rep. John Rutherford of Florida argues impoundment could be a useful tool in cases where, for example, Congress overestimates the amount of money it will take to complete a certain project 鈥� and a president doesn鈥檛 need Congress鈥� OK.
鈥淗e controls the executive branch,鈥� Representative Rutherford says.
A change to bipartisan funding
Another potential transformation in how Congress wields its power of the purse is coming from Congress itself.
Each year, members approve agency budgets, in what鈥檚 known as the appropriations process 鈥� or 鈥渢he center of government,鈥� as Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who is the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, puts it.
But amid budgetary gridlock in recent decades, it鈥檚 become increasingly common for parties in Congress to use a maneuver known as budget reconciliation in a novel way: to skirt that process when it comes to the things they really want passed.
These reconciliation bills 鈥� like the Republicans鈥� 2025 tax-and-spending bill dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Democrats鈥� 2022 Inflation Reduction Act 鈥� are distinct in two key ways: They effectively don鈥檛 require bipartisanship, and can provide funding for a party鈥檚 priorities for multiple years. That means there鈥檚 no annual evaluation of whether government spending is achieving its intended goals.
Under the traditional funding process, says Professor Super, 鈥淚f [programs have] been inefficient or spending their resources on things that are not their job, or corrupt, they face a lot of embarrassment and they face funding cuts.鈥�
Some lawmakers worry about Congress growing too used to this alternative funding pathway.
鈥淲e certainly don鈥檛 want to make it such that the way we get spending bills passed is exclusively through reconciliation,鈥� says Arkansas Republican John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 鈥淭he problem here is everything is done by precedent. So that gets to be the easy way to do it.鈥�
Keeping track of the money
The Trump administration has taken some actions that make it difficult to untangle exactly how taxpayer money that鈥檚 been budgeted by Congress is being spent.
After Mr. Trump鈥檚 first impeachment 鈥� in which he was accused of conditioning the release of congressionally approved money to pressure Ukraine 鈥� Congress passed a law requiring the Office of Management and Budget to make apportionment data public. That meant it had to disclose exactly how it parcels out congressionally approved funds to different agencies.
In March 2025, the OMB deactivated its public apportionment website, saying it could reveal sensitive information. The office later complied with a court order to start reposting documents, although watchdog groups reported missing elements, such as required footnotes.
鈥淭he administration has been 鈥� fast and loose in terms of what they鈥檙e making public and what they鈥檙e not,鈥� says Dr. Joyce.
The White House has also used money appropriated by Congress in novel ways that make it hard to track.
During two recent government shutdowns, the Trump administration paid employees. Some legal experts said that was a kind of impoundment in reverse: Instead of the government refusing to spend money Congress had set aside, the government spends money that Congress hasn鈥檛 set aside 鈥� at least not for that purpose.
During the Department of Homeland Security shutdown that began February 2026, for example, the administration directed DHS employees to be paid with funds that had a 鈥渞easonable and logical nexus to the functions of D.H.S.鈥� That definition left it unclear exactly which funds the president was using to pay these workers, and gave the administration 鈥� not Congress 鈥� wide leeway to decide what 鈥渞easonable and logical鈥� meant.
鈥淭hey were not at all clear about their legal justifications,鈥� says Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.
鈥淥nce you鈥檝e ceded power 鈥� it鈥檚 gone.鈥�
The current Congress hasn鈥檛 shown much inclination to claw back its power. And some experts predict the expanded presidential authority will carry into the future.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 really matter whether that executive is a Democrat or a Republican,鈥� Dr. Joyce says. 鈥淥nce you鈥檝e ceded power 鈥� once you鈥檝e given power from the legislative branch to the executive branch 鈥� it鈥檚 gone.鈥�
Professor Super says it鈥檚 possible the balance of power between Congress and the president swings back in the other direction.
鈥淥nce we get past President Trump, I suspect Congress will reassert itself and dramatically shrink the flexibility that administrations have,鈥� he says.
There鈥檚 some historical precedent. The Nixon administration鈥檚 use of expansive executive power led Congress to try to reassert its power. Congress passed laws 鈥� sometimes over the president鈥檚 veto 鈥� to enforce its authority over things like decisions about military conflict and limiting how the president spends congressionally appropriated money.
In the aftermath of Richard Nixon鈥檚 resignation, Congress passed a series of reforms designed to promote ethics and transparency in government.
Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, an Appropriations Committee member, says he doesn鈥檛 necessarily see Mr. Trump鈥檚 actions as opening the door for presidents鈥� expanded use of controversial tools going forward 鈥� 鈥渘ot if the Congress is zealous in protecting its Article I authority.鈥�
Asked if Congress has been zealous enough so far, he replies, 鈥淲e鈥檝e had good days and bad days.鈥�
