Congress, the President, and a constitutional argument as old as the Republic
More than two centuries ago, the Founders confronted a simple but important question:
Who should control the government’s money?
Their answer was deliberate: Congress.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution declares:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
And now, that principle is back in the headlines.
The Current Dispute
The Trump administration has sought to cancel more than $800 million previously appropriated by Congress for various federal programs.
The administration argues that some of this spending is wasteful or inconsistent with its policies. But that raises a different constitutional question:
Once Congress has appropriated the money, how much authority does a President have to refuse to spend it?
The disagreement crosses partisan lines. Republican Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has argued that cancelling congressionally approved spending without congressional consent infringes Congress’s constitutional authority over the purse.
Why Congress Holds the Purse
The Founders were deeply concerned about concentrating too much power in one branch of government.
At the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry summarized the principle simply:
“the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”
The people would do that through their elected representatives.
The arrangement reflected a broader constitutional principle: divide power.
Congress passes laws and appropriates money. The President executes those laws and administers the government. Neither was intended to exercise unlimited authority.
But What If a President Disagrees?
Presidents do have discretion in administering federal programs, and disputes over withheld spending are not new.
Congress addressed the issue directly in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. A President can ask Congress to cancel previously appropriated money through a process called rescission. Congress then decides whether that spending should actually be cancelled.
The present controversy involves a disputed practice sometimes called a “pocket rescission”—delaying spending close enough to the end of the fiscal year that the appropriation may expire before Congress acts.
That brings us back to the larger question.
Reverse the Situation
Suppose the President were someone you strongly supported and Congress appropriated billions for programs the President considered wasteful.
Should the President be able to stop the spending?
Now reverse it.
Suppose the President were someone you strongly opposed, and Congress appropriated money for programs you considered essential.
Should that President have the same power?
That is why constitutional restraints matter. They are not designed merely for officeholders we trust. They are designed for the office itself.
The Founders knew presidents would come and go. Political parties would rise and fall.
What mattered was where the power resided.
The Founders Are Still in the Headlines
There is a legitimate debate over federal spending, government waste and how much flexibility Presidents should have.
But underneath it lies a much older question:
Who gets to decide?
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse while giving the President responsibility for executing the laws.
The difficult questions occur where those powers meet.
The Founders did not design a government without tension.
They designed one in which tension between competing powers would help prevent any one of them from becoming absolute.
