[a_puppy]

Federal money is allocated by Congress, and the President is required to spend the money as allocated by Congress. The President does not have authority to cut spending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...

> Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? ... This is taxpayers money ... A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.

Reviewed for what?

Reviewed for whether the spending was authorized by Congress? If Musk finds that money is being spent in ways that are not authorized by Congress, and cuts that spending, great.

Reviewed for whether the money is being used efficiently to accomplish the goals set by Congress? Again, if Musk finds ways to stretch the same amount of money to accomplish more, that's great. For example, if Musk makes USAID more efficient so it delivers more aid for the same amount of money, that would be wonderful.

Or "reviewed" for whether Trump/Musk agree with them? It's illegal for the President to unilaterally cut programs just because he doesn't like them.

[refurb]

The idea that the President, the head of the Executive branch, has zero power over Executive branch spending down to the agency level, because Congress said X must be spent and dammit they must spend it, makes no sense.

By that logic and taken to an extreme, Congress could pass a budget law (overriding the executive’s veto) to set executive spending for specific agencies to only be spent on computers, say the FBI, and the executive is powerless to Congresses control over the executive function to carry out the laws that the Congress has passed?

So clearly the intention is one of checks and balances, for example the President can’t spend money Congress does appropriate but also has some power over how that money is spent as such to exercise the power of the Executive.

So let’s see what the Constituion says as per Congress.gov!

“The constitutional dimensions of impoundment disputes have been confined to the political branches. The Supreme Court has not directly considered the extent of the President’s constitutional authority, if any, to impound funds.16 However, a case decided in 1838, United States v. Kendall,17 has been cited as standing for the proposition that the President may not direct the withholding of certain appropriations that, by their terms, mandate spending.18”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-7/...

Very interesting! Sounds like something he may want the Supreme Court to rule on!

I for one look forward to getting some clarity on this issue.

[a_puppy]

Congress quite literally has the power to pass laws. According to the Constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; the President's oath of office requires that he execute the laws set by Congress. So for example, if Congress were to pass a silly law saying "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent", then the President would be required to make sure the FBI spent exactly $X on computers, down to the cent. The President has many powers, but "deciding not to execute the laws passed by Congress" is not one of them.

Quoting from the page you linked:

> Impoundments usually proceeded on the view that an appropriation sets a ceiling on spending for a particular purpose but typically did not mandate that all such sums be spent. According to this view, if that purpose could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount, there would be no impediment in law to realizing savings. Impoundments were also justified on the ground that a statute, other than the appropriation itself, authorized the withholding.

In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, then Congress didn't necessarily mean "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent". It could be interpreted to mean "the FBI may spend up to $X on computers". But Congress has clarified this ambiguity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...

> the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.

In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, but the President thinks $X is excessive, then the President may ask Congress for permission to spend less than $X. If Congress doesn't grant the permission within 45 days, then the President must go ahead and spend the full $X. Again, Congress literally has the power to set the laws, and the President is required by his oath of office to execute those laws.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court already ruled on this exact question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York

> President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.

That case seems directly analogous to what Musk is currently trying to do. Nixon lost that case in the Supreme Court.

Even if the Supreme Court did rule that the President had impoundment powers, it would probably be on the condition that "[the purpose of the law] could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount" (quoting from the page you linked). For example, the President would still be required to buy sufficient computers for the FBI, even if he spent less than $X on them. The President still wouldn't be able to just unilaterally decide "no, the FBI doesn't need computers, this is a waste of money".

So, I think it's already quite clear that Trump/Musk do not have the constitutional authority to just start cutting government programs. Do you agree? If not, which part do you want further clarity on?

[refurb]

No, it’s not “quite clear” as the link provided described.

Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.

If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.

And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.

Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.

And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.

So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.

[a_puppy]

> If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.

They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".

> you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law

It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...

[refurb]

> They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".

Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.

Hence the confusing email (only if you don’t know how the government works) that rescinded the original mechanism and replaced it with another.

> They then returned with a proposal of $700 billion in spending cuts, but that failed to convince some of those in the right flank.

It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.

But unlike last time where he got there day 1 with “ok, what’s next”, he went in this time with a laundry list and an actual strategy.

Which is just smart. I’ve worked for big corps and it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.

[a_puppy]

> Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.

A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...

> It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.

Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.

> it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.

Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.

Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)

[a_puppy]

> a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon

Both legislation and Supreme Court precedent say that the President cannot impound funds. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for him to impound funds because the Supreme Court decision was fifty years ago and they might rule differently today.

Couldn't that argument be used to justify breaking any law? I think Trump must follow the law. Do you agree that Trump must follow the law even if the Supreme Court hasn't specifically reaffirmed that particular law recently?

(I'd feel differently if Trump illegally impounded some trivial amount of money just to get a case before the Supreme Court; but that's not what he's doing here.)