[rayiner]

It’s quite debatable what the founders intended here. Congress has the power to appropriate funds, it’s not clear as a constitutional matter it has the power to compel the executive to use all the appropriated funds.

Even as a legal matter, the impoundment act only requires rescission notification once it’s clear that the executive won’t use all the money appropriated for a “program.” When Congress is appropriating say $3 billion in a line item for USAID, DOGE can cancel a lot of individual contracts before it needs to invoke recession saying USAID won’t use all $3 billion.

[tptacek]

This is tantamount to saying that the executive not only has a line-item veto, but that it's non-overridable. Seems wrong.

[secos]

This planet money article lays out the arguments for both with lots of interesting links to follow. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/02/18/g-s1-49...

[unclebucknasty]

>cancel a lot of individual contracts before it needs to invoke recession

This is not correct.

The recission process requires that the Executive branch notify Congress upon appropriation that it will not use appropriated funds. Congress can then decide to accept or reject the recission notice. If rejected, the funds remain appropriated, with whatever conditions Congress set.

The argument could be made that this is a new administration with different priorities, so does not intend to use the previously appropriated funds. But, even then, the spirit of the law (and the Constitution) is such that the new administration would engage in the recission process as if the funds had just been appropriated. So, they would submit a recission notice before taking action.

That is, they would not just do whatever they wanted and inform Congress afterwards.

[rayiner]

> The recission process requires that the Executive branch notify Congress upon appropriation that it will not use appropriated funds.

That’s not what the statute says. 2 U.S.C. 683(a) says:

> Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying

There must be a determination and it must be with respect to a program. So for example Congress appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations as a single line item. The executive is completely within its power to halt discretionary grants or expenditures during the audit process. Then at some point the executive can make a determination how much of the total “program” amount will actually be needed and how much won’t be needed. Only at that point is the recessionary notice required.

[unclebucknasty]

Your conclusion directly contradicts the Code you quoted.

From the Code:

>Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required...or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress...

The operative phrase is "Whenever the President determines".

However, your conclusion adds:

>The executive is completely within its power to halt discretionary grants or expenditures during the audit process.

The Code says nothing like this, instead, explicitly stating "on determination", not "after action".

This "prior notification" requirement is also both within the letter of the original appropriations process, and the intent of the law overall.

[mpalmer]

Cutting matters not one bit if Congress doesn't pass tax cuts. Voters don't care about the national debt if they don't see more money coming to them.

[whall6]

I actually think that they would still care. It weirdly feels cathartic to know that we are no longer spending federal taxpayer dollars on “zombie apocalypse preparation classes” no matter how insignificant it is to the budget. What is the best way to eat an elephant?

[mpalmer]

I don't see how an informed person who cares about the rule of law feels cathartic about what is happening.

[MisterKent]

We don't. Rules are all essentially fictional, and an agreed illusion that we've all been conditioned to see as an immutable.

What the past few decades did was push enough people to the point of no longer seeing the value in continuing the illusion.

I am terrified of the long term ramifications here. But again, I do see how we ended up here.

[cwalv]

I think you're both right. The don't care (without a tax cut) until the most ridiculous line items are made public.

[mpalmer]

Problem is the ridiculous line items wouldn't make a shadow of a dent in the federal budget. Certainly won't lower your tax bill.

[cwalv]

Agree .. but my point is that people will still care, on principle. Throw in any kind of cut, or esp. a helicopter payment, and the effect would be shock and awe

[mpalmer]

Bad metaphor. What's the best way to lose weight? Elon thinks it's cutting your arm off.

[dboreham]

Voters generally speaking don't pay federal income tax, or pay so little that it won't make a difference.

[KennyBlanken]

The Impoundment Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the house and unanimous support in the senate. It was a direct rebuke to Nixon deciding he had the presidential authority to not fund programs he didn't like.

It unambiguously affirmed Congress's sole authority over federal spending.

The Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority over federal taxation and spending, and this power is a key check on executive power. If the executive branch could ignore congressional spending decisions, it would effectively render Congress’s "power of the purse" irrelevant.

It's called the Spending Clause, not the Appropriation Clause, for a reason.

As to the rest of your argument: not spending the full $100M congress specifies in 100M Mars Bars for the Air Force because Mars wasn't able to deliver the last 25 million Mars Bars, is not the same thing as "One person decided Mars Bars are Woke so we just stopped paying Mars Candy yesterday."

[georgemcbay]

> it’s not clear as a constitutional matter it has the power to compel the executive to use all the appropriated funds.

It seemed pretty clear to (now-Supreme Court justice, nominated by Trump) Brett Kavanaugh:

"Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill."

https://casetext.com/case/in-re-aiken-cnty-2

Though to be fair he wrote this in 2013 when a black Democrat was President so maybe now he feels like things are a little bit less clear for... reasons.

[munchler]

Forget the Impoundment Act -- this is a Constitutional issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the President is required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress. Shuttering USAID, as Trump and Musk have done, goes way beyond mere line item impoundments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York

[zdragnar]

However, they claim that USAID was spending far too much on projects that were not in line with their objectives. Not even Congress can create an agency that is fully autonomous with zero oversight from anyone within the government.

Whether that argument would hold up in court remains to be seen, of course.

[Volundr]

Can you clarify what USAIDs objectives are and which programs are "far outside those objectives".

Most of what I see being complained about can easily fall under socioeconomic development, which is ostensibly one of the objectives.

[daveguy]

All of these agencies had multiple levels of oversight both within the executive and through congress. Trump eliminated inspectors general positions providing oversight.

The executive branch doesn't get to interpret what spending is in line with the laws passed by Congress.

Trump is taking a shit on the US Constitution.

[rayiner]

From your source:

> Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment,"[2] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about impoundment power but focused on the statute's language and legislative history.

[skissane]

The current SCOTUS majority isn't afraid to overturn 50 year old precedents. Given they overturned Roe v Wade, why not Train v City of New York too?

But they don't strictly speaking have to overturn it, just limit its scope of application somehow. For example, Train was about grants to the states – SCOTUS might rule the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutional, and decide that the President has the right in general to impound appropriated funds, but they also might follow Train in carving out an exception to that general right for grants to the states.