You are here > Home > News Columns >"Who Should Set U.S. (Spending) Policy?" [Conclusion]

 

The Executive Branch Must Act Within Its Authority

Previous Judicial Honor and Repect is a Two-way Street	Who Should Set U.S. (Spending) Policy?	Next The Gods Must Be Crazy --Alberto Garcia
Published in The Galveston County Daily News June 4, 2025 It’s June which is the time when the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issues its final rulings for its current session.  The stage is set for a major Constitutional battle over presidential authority whether to spend funds appropriated by Congress.  Administration officials want to reduce existing restrictions on presidents’ impoundment power which allows a president to decline to spend money Congress has appropriated.  The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA-74) requires presidents to seek permission from Congress to rescind -- officially end – such funding.  Some see this requirement as violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.  Specifically, they argue that the chief executive has broad authority to interpret and make decisions about where to spend Congressionally-sanctioned funding. The question is “Who has the authority to establish the policy of the United States and specifically its foreign policy?” Since January 20th DOGE has uncovered billions of dollars spent on wasteful projects and things that don’t coincide with the policies voters elected Donald Trump to accomplish.  Can the Administration decide not to waste taxpayer funds or does it require Congressional approval?  History shows that presidents have decided not to spend appropriated funds.  For example, Jefferson declined to spend money for 15 new gunboats that he deemed unnecessary.  Congress didn’t require him to spend the money, so he didn’t.   But that was before the ICA-74.  Leftwing activists are arguing that it doesn’t matter if the spending is wise or even fraudulent, it must be spent unless Congress agrees to a recission.   Elon Musk found cases where projects were completed for less than what was appropriated.  The leftwing activists claim that all the money must still be spent on something, who cares on what? Here is how we believe things should work: If Congress authorizes “A,B,C” and then appropriates the funds to accomplish it, any president should have the ability to not spend the funds if he, like Jefferson, finds it unwise or not in line with the Administration’s policy.  So, for example, if a state decides to build an interstate highway that doesn’t meet current federal standards the administration has every right to withhold federal funding. Or if a project is completed under budget administrations shouldn’t be forced to spend the savings. However, IF Congress “mandates” the funding be spent, then it becomes clear an Administration must spend it or get Congressional approval not to.  But the Congress must be specific regarding what they want to accomplish with the funding, something they seldom do.   Certainly, any president is prohibited from spending funds appropriated for “A,B,C” on “X,Y,Z” without first going back to Congress for approval.  But that’s not what is happening here.  We believe ICA-74 is an usurpation of the executive power/authority by the legislative branch; especially when it comes to rooting out wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive spending or when a president is being forced to get Congressional approval for not spending funds for things that don’t line up with U.S. policy. “Who sets the spending policies of the U.S. government?”  The Congress or the President?  We contend Congress can set the broad parameters.  But no president should be precluded from making wise and prudent decisions about how those funds will be spent. In the long-run, the issue of the acceptable parameters of the ICA-74 will most likely fall in the lap of the SCOTUS.  We will see that they decide. Conclusion: IF the President is found to have the authority NOT to spend non-mandated appropriated funding, then issues like raising the debt limit could become a moot point IF the President decides not to spent funds that would increase the federal deficit (i.e., actual spending cuts, but not cuts mandated by Congress). If, on the other hand, he is required to expend the appropriated funds, then refusing to increase the debt limit (i.e., spending cuts) becomes an important issue.
	About the Authors and Columnists 2025 Bill Sargent and Mark Mansius have written over 300 guest columns and editorials over the last ten years for numerous publications and continue to do so. Bill lives in Galveston, Texas and Mark in St. Georges, Utah. Both Bill and Mark ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues.
.