Every other Tuesday, the team behind Civics 101 joins NHPR’s All Things Considered Host Julia Furukawa to talk about how our democratic institutions actually work.
Since President Donald Trump took office, he’s tried to freeze federal funding for grants, foreign aid and more, but some of those actions have been challenged in court. Congress is supposed to dictate how the government spends money. So how is the president able to spend or freeze funds?
Civics 101 host Nick Capodice joined Julia to talk about the power of the purse and if Congress still holds that power today.
Transcript
First off, though, Nick, can you give us some classic 101 on this? What are the powers Congress has to check the president specifically?
There are four ways. Before I rattle them off, it's worth mentioning that checks and balances are the core of our governmental system. The framers did not want one person or one governing body to have all the power, so these checks are crucial.
When it comes to Congress versus the executive, we've got four. First we have appointments. Many presidentially-appointed positions require the Senate's approval. Number two is the power of investigations. Congress can see if the executive branch is or isn't doing what it's supposed to. The next step to that is number three, which is impeachment. The House can vote to impeach and the Senate vote to remove elected officials.
Finally, the one we're talking about today, the big one, the power of the purse. And it's this: only Congress can dictate how the government raises money or spends money. And this must be done through what are called appropriations bills, which appropriate money.
Regardless of that check, the power of the purse, President Trump has signed executive actions that ordered agencies to cease funding. How is that happening?
The answer is Congress is allowing it to happen. According to the Constitution, the president cannot appropriate money. Honestly, the Constitution could not be clearer on this. The clause in Article I says, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
But when a president orders money to be withheld that Congress already appropriated, that's called an impoundment. Impoundments are not constitutional. They were extremely rare until President Nixon. Throughout history, the parties that were the subject of impoundments sued to get their appropriated money and usually won.
So to stop this from happening, Congress could include language in its next spending bill that says, “Hey, appropriations are our job. Impoundments are illegal. And until that is recognized by the president, we will refuse to fund the White House.” But they haven't, and they probably won't.
So if they're illegal and extremely rare, why might Congress allow these impoundments to happen? Why would a legislative body willingly cede their own power?
The political scientist that we spoke to for this episode, Eric Schickler, said it is all because of one word: polarization. So until the 1980s, you would see Republican senators standing up to Republican presidents in the face of a power grab like this. But starting in the 1990s, we saw a shift where members of Congress started to prioritize their party over their institution, their powers, [and] what the Constitution says they can and can't do.
Now, Congress members of both parties can tweet and give speeches and express concern for executive overreach, but they can [also] stop it. They can stop it any time they want to. But they are, in the House specifically, very beholden to their constituents. Even if they see their own power reduced by things like impoundments, unless the public says, “Hey, I'm interested in checks and balances, we've done it this way for 200 years,” it is not in their political interest to act against it. It could cost them an election in our increasingly polarized nation.
