Eleanor Finch
During his tenure, former US President Donald Trump was accused of freezing federal funding and attempting to withhold funds from states and cities that refused to cooperate with his administration's federal immigration enforcement agenda. Trump's actions were deemed by many as unlawful and unconstitutional, as the power to withhold congressionally-approved funding lies with Congress and not the President. Despite court orders requiring the Trump administration to stop withholding funding, concerns were raised about the courts' ability to enforce their orders.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump Administration's actions | To withhold funding that was provided by Congress and signed into law |
| Legal experts' opinion | Trump may be breaking federal laws |
| Trump's legal team's argument | The Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds |
| Supreme Court's decision | The President does not have the constitutional authority to withhold appropriated funds unilaterally |
| Trump Administration's implication | Many laws regulating the federal government's operations are invalid and can be ignored |
| Congress' power | The "power of the purse," which decides what funds should be spent and where |
| Trump's actions | Threatened to cut off funding to states and cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement |
| Court orders | Required the Administration to stop withholding funding |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's threat to withhold funds from cities is unconstitutional
The Constitution does not allow the President to withhold funds from cities unilaterally. The "power of the purse" lies with Congress, which decides what funds should be spent and where. The executive branch cannot withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding without authorisation from Congress.
Trump's threat to withhold funds from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement is not only legally dubious but also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear that the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. Previous administrations have tried and failed to push similar measures, and courts have repeatedly ruled that such attempts violate statutory and constitutional principles.
Trump's legal team could argue that the "Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds". They could cite Thomas Jefferson's decision to halt funding for gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River. However, legal experts say that Trump does not have the constitutional authority to ignore statutes that establish a department or agency.
Trump's attempt to unilaterally control state and local funding has been described as "dangerous, dumb, and undemocratic". If allowed to go into effect, this order would mean that seniors could go hungry, refugee resettlement agencies would close, addiction treatment clinics would cancel appointments, and schools would need to freeze meal programs. It would also impact disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and small business loans.
Two federal courts have issued temporary restraining orders prohibiting the Trump Administration from freezing funding. However, with Vice President Vance questioning the courts' power, some have asked if the courts can enforce their orders.
How Sniffing Dogs Affect Your Privacy Rights
You may want to see also
The Impoundment Control Act
The Act outlines that impoundment is only legal when the President adheres to the procedures and limitations in the ICA. It is important to note that the ICA does not authorize the President to cancel funding, only to delay it. The ICA also authorizes the head of the GAO (Government Accountability Office), the Comptroller General, to file a lawsuit if the President illegally impounds funds.
Senior Administration officials, such as OMB Director Russell Vought, have argued that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. However, this argument implies that many laws regulating the federal government's operations are invalid, which would significantly alter the structure of the US government.
In the context of President Trump's actions, legal experts have questioned whether his attempts to withhold funding are constitutional. Trump's legal team would likely argue that the Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds. However, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the President to seek permission from Congress before withholding funds, which Trump may have failed to do.
Racial Profiling: Legal Standpoint and Definition
You may want to see also
Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court has ruled that the President does not have the constitutional authority to withhold appropriated funds without congressional authorization. The Court's decision states that the President's power to withhold funds would effectively amend the underlying statute, which exceeds his powers.
In the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding unless states agreed to expand the program was unconstitutional coercion. This ruling affirmed that the federal government cannot force states to carry out federal actions, such as immigration enforcement, by withholding funds.
Additionally, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the President to seek permission from Congress before withholding funds. Trump's attempts to withhold funding have faced legal challenges, with two federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders prohibiting his administration from freezing funds.
Legal experts and members of Congress have also asserted that the President's actions violate the Constitution's separation of powers and the spending power, which lies exclusively with Congress.
Constitutional vs. Supreme Court: What's the Difference?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 10th Amendment
Trump's attempts to withhold funding have been deemed by many as unlawful and unconstitutional. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 outlines a process for rescinding appropriated funds, which includes informing Congress and publishing the message in the Federal Register. Trump has not followed this process, and his actions have been seen as an attempt to unilaterally control funding, which exceeds his powers. The Supreme Court has ruled that withholding funds can amount to amending an underlying statute, which is beyond the president's authority.
The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law limit the president's authority over congressionally-appropriated funds. Courts have consistently ruled that the executive branch cannot coerce states and cities by leveraging federal funding. While Trump has threatened to withhold funding in various areas, such as research for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, school lunches, and grants to sanctuary cities, these actions are largely seen as illegal and contrary to the principles of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers.
Serving in the Cabinet: What's the Typical Tenure?
You may want to see also
The President's authority to withhold funds
The Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse," meaning that it has the authority to decide how funds are spent. The executive branch, therefore, cannot unilaterally withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding without Congress's approval. This principle is known as impoundment and is established in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the President to seek permission from Congress before withholding funds.
Despite this, the Trump Administration has attempted to withhold funding from various programs and communities, arguing that the President has the authority to impound funds. This has been met with legal challenges, with federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders and injunctions to stop the Administration from freezing funding. Legal experts and politicians have also spoken out, stating that the President's actions are illegal and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter, finding that the President does not have the inherent constitutional power to withhold appropriated funds unilaterally. In their decision, they asserted that by withholding funds, the President was effectively amending the underlying statute, which exceeded his powers.
The debate over the President's authority to withhold funds has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. It also impacts the functioning of democracy, as withholding funds can affect investments, infrastructure projects, job creation, and essential services for families and communities.
Constitution's Impact: Citizen Participation Enhanced or Hindered?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, it is not constitutional for Trump to withhold funds. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President does not have the constitutional authority to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the "power of the purse," meaning that the President cannot withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding without congressional authorization.
The legal basis for saying that Trump cannot withhold funds is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the President to get permission from Congress before withholding funds. Additionally, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution grants states the right to refuse to participate in federal immigration enforcement, and courts have upheld this right.
The consequences of Trump withholding funds include the potential closure of refugee resettlement agencies, addiction treatment clinics, and the freezing of meal programs in schools. It would also impact disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and small business loans.
No, Trump has not successfully withheld funds in the past. Multiple courts have temporarily blocked Trump's attempts to freeze funding, and two federal courts have issued temporary restraining orders prohibiting the Administration from freezing funding.
Trump has argued that the Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds, citing Thomas Jefferson's halting of funding for gunboats as a precedent. However, legal experts and Congress members have stated that Trump's actions are illegal and unconstitutional.
