In a move that could give President Donald Trump more freedom to enact his agenda, Republicans are attempting to repeal a law that ties the hands of presidents who don’t want to spend particular funding appropriated by Congress.
Known as impoundment, the practice of declining to spend funds provided by Congress dates back to President Thomas Jefferson.
Since 1974, however, it has been tempered by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
Republicans in the House and Senate now want to repeal the ICA.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) introduced Senate and House versions of their bill striking down the Watergate-era act.
The February legislation comes after House Appropriations Committee Democrats said that some of Trump’s executive orders violate the ICA by calling to delay funding to programs Congress enacted under President Joe Biden.
In an email to The Epoch Times, Clyde said he was hopeful he and his 25 original cosponsors in the House would offer “a strong, unified defense of President Trump’s constitutional impoundment authority.”
Lee told The Epoch Times in an email that the proposed repeal would “help restore the original separation of powers intended by the Founders.”
Defenders of impoundment trace it to Article II of the Constitution, which states the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Lee described impoundment as “a longstanding presidential authority” used by presidents for more than a century and a half and grounded in the Constitution.
When it was passed in 1974, the ICA came alongside court decisions bearing on impoundment. All arose as President Richard Nixon sought to avoid spending water pollution funds allocated by Congress and to dismantle the Office of Economic Opportunity created by his predecessor.
Phillip Joyce, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland who has written about the ICA, told The Epoch Times that the law “creates a process by which the president can propose the cancellation of budget authority.”
But that process curtails a president’s ability to avoid spending the money that Congress appropriates.
Irwin Kramer, an attorney and law professor who has criticized both the ICA and expansive presidential impoundments, told The Epoch Times that “as things stand today, you can’t really impound.”
Under the ICA, presidents have only two paths to try to impound funds. The first path lets the president impound funding temporarily, no longer than the remaining fiscal year. The possible reasons for such a deferral are limited.
The second path starts with the president asking Congress to impound funds permanently. The funding can then be frozen for 45 days of “continuous session” of Congress—in practice, about 60 to 75 or more calendar days. During that period, Congress can approve the request for a rescission of funding.
Government Accountability Office statistics show that during his first term, Trump requested 34 rescissions totaling $14.8 billion. Congress accepted none of them.
Lawyer Mark Paoletta described the ICA’s restrictions as “a norm-breaking overreaction in the wake of Watergate” in a 2024 article coauthored by Daniel Shapiro for the Center for Renewing America, a think tank founded by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought. Paoletta is now the OMB’s general counsel.
“The ICA,” Paoletta and Shapiro wrote, “is unconstitutional.”
Kramer said that both impoundment and the ICA raise constitutional issues.
“The Constitution does not provide the President with the power to impound funds appropriated by Congress, so it, like the ‘line-item veto,’ is unconstitutional,” he said.
The Supreme Court in 1998 struck down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, finding that it overstepped constitutional bounds into Congress’s territory.
Kramer told The Epoch Times that the ICA is constitutionally questionable because of its deferral provision, which was struck down by a federal court in 1987. Though Congress amended that provision, Kramer believes it is still imperfect.
—Nathan Worcester
BOOKMARKS
The U.S. Department of Education is warning state education departments that they have 14 days to cease their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or risk losing federal funding. The Epoch Times’ Bill Pan reported that these programs were described as “overt and covert racial discrimination” by the department.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed during a joint appearance in Jerusalem to combat Iran’s nuclear ambitions, The Epoch Times’ Jacob Burg reported. Netanyahu said after the meeting that he and Rubio had a “very productive discussion” on several issues, “none more important than Iran.”
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue its de facto audit of certain executive agencies, according to a ruling Friday in the District of Columbia. The Epoch Times’ Kimberly Hayek reported. That shot down an effort to restrict the power of DOGE to access certain government data.
The U.S. State Department has recently removed a line from its website’s fact sheet that previously said the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence. The Epoch Times’ Aldgra Fredly reported that the fact sheet, published on Feb. 13 following President Donald Trump’s return to the White House on Jan. 20, removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence.”
