President-elect Donald Trump is planning to test a controversial legal theory, asserting that presidents have the power to withhold funding from programs they oppose. This strategy, known as “impoundment,” could potentially shift significant budgetary control from Congress to the executive branch.

Trump’s plan challenges the long-standing constitutional principle that gives Congress sole authority over federal spending.

“We can simply choke off the money,” Trump stated in a 2023 campaign video, claiming presidential power to stop “unnecessary spending.”

This approach contradicts the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enacted after President Nixon’s attempts to defund programs he disliked. The law requires presidents to spend money as appropriated by Congress, with few exceptions.

Related Story: After Delay, Trump Signs Agreement With Biden White House to Begin Formal ...

Key Figures in Trump’s Impoundment Strategy

Trump’s former budget director, Russell Vought, now set to lead the Office of Management and Budget again, is a key figure in promoting this idea. “Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government,” Trump said in a statement.

Critics argue this move could fundamentally alter the balance of power in government. “It’s an effort to wrest the entire power of the purse away from Congress, and that is just not the constitutional design,” said Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown Law professor.

Related Story: Trump Transition Team Suggests Sidelining Top Adviser Over Pay-to-Play ...

Concerns Over Potential Abuse of Power

The plan has raised concerns about potential abuse of power, reminiscent of Trump’s first impeachment over withholding aid to Ukraine. Some fear it could be used for political vengeance or to target perceived enemies.

While Trump’s team claims historical precedent for impoundment, legal experts note that most past examples involved explicit congressional authorization or military spending. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on impoundment’s constitutionality, but previous decisions suggest skepticism towards broad presidential power to withhold appropriated funds.

Read more at ProPublica