The debate over impoundment, the president’s refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress, has become prominent in our political discourse. Critics call it a dangerous power grab, while supporters hail it as a necessary tool for fiscal discipline.
One thing is certain: Impoundment isn’t new. Previous U.S. presidents exercised impoundment as a matter of course. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower all impounded funds when they deemed it appropriate. Even Thomas Jefferson employed the practice.
Richard Nixon’s aggressive impoundment prompted Congress to pass the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, effectively stripping the executive branch of this authority. Further complicating the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York (1975) that the impoundment power cannot be used to frustrate the will of Congress.
The act created the procedural structure by which the executive reports impoundments, Congress then considers and reviews impoundments, and it issues approvals or disapprovals. It will be interesting to see whether the federal courts feel that the Trump administration’s cuts are consistent with those procedures and with the Train v. poundments, and it issues approvals or disapprovals. It will be interesting to see whether the federal courts feel that the Trump administration’s cuts are consistent with those procedures and with the Train v.
