President Trump attempts to snatch congressional power of the purse

President Donald Trump’s unexpected freeze on federal aid caught just about everyone off guard, but House Republicans attending a retreat at Trump’s Doral resort weren’t sharing any concerns about the sudden order that is poised to choke off programs from nutrition assistance to disaster relief in red states.

By instituting a freeze, the White House illustrated in the starkest terms to date that Trump is willing to test the limits of the president’s authority over the budget.

The U.S. Constitution affords the power of the purse to Congress, but Trump has signaled he could circumvent lawmakers anyway, potentially terminating entire categories of spending that he opposes.

Although Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, they are not sounding the alarm over Trump’s encroachment on their power by pausing of potentially trillions in federal spending, a move that could test the limits of presidential authority to block money already approved by Congress.

The freeze on federal spending plunged the country into confusion and chaos, with food safety, crime prevention and housing assistance programs, among others, suddenly and unexpectedly cut off from resources needed to operate.

The question of whether a U.S. president has the authority to block or withhold funds that have already been appropriated by Congress has been the subject of significant legal debate and litigation.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against President Richard Nixon’s attempt to impound funds allocated for water pollution control projects, holding that once Congress appropriates funds, the executive branch must spend them as directed.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated.

Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to limit the president’s ability to withhold funds.

The law explicitly restricts the president’s ability to withhold funds without congressional approval, created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and strengthened Congress’ oversight of the federal budget.

The court ruled in City of New Haven v. United States (1981) that President Jimmy Carter’s deferral of funds for urban development programs violated the Impoundment Control Act, reinforcing the principle that the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress.

During the first Trump administration, a legal battle arose over the president’s attempt to redirect funds for the construction of a border wall after Congress refused to appropriate the requested amount.

Trump declared a national emergency and sought to reallocate funds from military construction but a federal court ruled that the diversion of funds violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress exclusive control over federal spending.

Within minutes of the White House freezing billions in federal grants and loans, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued a brief administrative stay that temporarily blocked the policy from taking effect until 5 p.m. on Feb. 3.

Pressed by the Judge, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Schwei struggled to articulate the full extent of the administration’s guidance.

“It seems like the federal government currently doesn’t actually know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause. Is that correct?” AliKhan asked.

Republicans generally applauded Trump’s efforts to neuter the legislative branch’s power over the purse.

“We’ve got a math problem on this country,” said Rep. Ralph Norman, a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus. “We spend more than we make.”

Medicaid, education and housing funds were all interrupted Tuesday — even though the White House said its order was meant to be limited — but the controversial stance still primed the White House for a constitutional clash over its budgetary authorities, while worrying Democrats, who argued that Trump risked setting a dangerous precedent that carries significant costs for the millions of families and organizations that rely on uninterrupted federal aid.

The court prevented the restrictions from taking effect at least until Feb. 3, allowing a coalition of public-health advocates, nonprofits and businesses — represented by the left-leaning group Democracy Forward — to proceed with their case challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s actions.

The decision arrived on a day of vast confusion and chaos in Washington, where few appeared to understand the scope and intention of a White House memo that had directed agencies to “temporarily pause” the disbursement of key funds.

Even before it officially took effect at 5 p.m. Tuesday, thousands of government services — totaling billions of dollars and dedicated primarily to Americans’ health, safety and well-being — appeared to be at risk of shutting down, at least temporarily.

For hours, many states on Tuesday reported issues accessing funds under Medicaid, even though the White House later said it wasn’t supposed to be affected by the spending halt. Preschool centers struggled to obtain reimbursements from the federal program known as Head Start, putting some child-care services at financial risk.

A web portal that housing providers use to draw down money for government voucher and rental assistance funds stopped working Tuesday, though the cause was not immediately clear.

Federal health and education officials similarly said they had to halt work in response to the mixed messages from the White House. That delayed money for some after-school programs, charter schools and the Special Olympics, a spokesperson for the Education Department confirmed.

The uncertainty forced the White House to clarify its approach by midday: In a new directive, the Office of Management and Budget said it sought only to bring spending in line with the president’s recent executive orders, including those that clamp down on foreign aid and funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, which Trump has called “radical and wasteful.”

But the conflicting and muddled instructions still proved disruptive, sparking widespread concern — particularly among Democrats — about the administration’s willingness to subvert Congress on matters of federal spending.

And it triggered a bevy of new legal threats, as Democratic attorneys general from roughly two dozen states prepared to file their own lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s spending freeze.

“The Trump White House freeze on congressionally mandated federal aid is reckless and unprecedented,” Phil Weiser, the attorney general of Colorado, said in a statement. “This action takes the power of the purse away from Congress, violates the separation of powers, and is already causing massive harm in Colorado, undermining delivery of healthcare, education, and public safety.”

Trump’s announcement of a freeze on federal loans and grants has left officials and organizations across the nation scrambling to assess the potential impact on critical programs.

The freeze, outlined in a late-night memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has raised legal and constitutional questions, as courts have consistently ruled that the president cannot unilaterally withhold funds already approved by Congress without explicit legislative approval.

The memo, issued Monday night, directed federal agencies to identify and review all federal financial assistance programs to ensure compliance with the president’s policies.

It specifically targeted initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender ideology, and the Green New Deal, though it provided no clear definition of these terms or how they would be applied.

“All of this but also, it’s easy to do disastrous things when you really don’t have an opposition party willing to do anything other than go on cable news to talk about how concerned they are while fundraising,” said Blakeley Bartley.

The memo stated that the freeze would not affect Medicare or Social Security benefits but reports of disruptions to Medicaid portals on Tuesday prompted confusion and calls for clarification from state Medicaid directors.

Legal experts and lawmakers were quick to question the legality of the move.

“This decision is lawless, dangerous, destructive, cruel. It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during a press conference. Schumer emphasized that the freeze could impact billions, if not trillions, of dollars supporting states, cities, schools, hospitals, small businesses, and families. He described the memo as a “dagger at the heart of the average American family” and vowed to challenge the administration’s actions.

The freeze has left organizations that rely on federal funding uncertain about their future. Head Start, a program providing pre-school funding for low-income children, warned that the memo could “severely disrupt” services for nearly 800,000 children and their families. Meals on Wheels, which delivers meals to vulnerable seniors, expressed concern that the freeze could halt services for millions of older Americans who depend on the program. Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, called the order a “potential five-alarm fire for nonprofits,” warning that even a short pause in funding could have devastating consequences, including the closure of homeless shelters, reduction of food assistance, and suspension of suicide hotlines.

The memo’s broad language and lack of specifics have fueled widespread confusion. While the White House clarified that Medicare and Social Security would not be affected, reports of disruptions to Medicaid portals raised questions about the freeze’s scope. A White House official attributed the Medicaid portal issues to unrelated technical problems, but the National Association of Medicaid Directors has formally requested guidance from the administration to address the interruptions.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties expressed concern about the freeze’s implications. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the top Democratic appropriator, called the memo a “brazen and illegal move” and urged Republicans to delay the confirmation of Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee for OMB director, until the administration provides clarity. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, acknowledged the need for answers, stating, “People are asking, like, what does this mean? How long does it last? Reasonable questions.”

The freeze has also reignited debates about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Legal precedent, including the Supreme Court’s 1975 decision in Train v. City of New York, has firmly established that the president cannot unilaterally impound funds appropriated by Congress. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 further restricts the president’s ability to withhold funds without congressional approval. Critics argue that Trump’s freeze violates these principles and undermines Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

As the administration faces mounting legal and political challenges, the freeze has left states, organizations, and individuals in limbo. With no clear timeline or explanation for the freeze, the potential consequences for programs ranging from disaster relief to health care remain uncertain. For now, the nation waits for clarity from the White House and Congress as the debate over presidential authority and federal funding continues to unfold.