Photo credit: www.govexec.com

Bipartisan Senators Urge Trump Administration to Adhere to Funding Legislation

A bipartisan duo of senators, key figures in federal budget oversight, are urging the Trump administration to utilize funds appropriated by Congress. They assert that the president’s refusal to spend allocated funds violates established interpretations of funding laws.

According to reports, the administration is not allocating $3 billion from recently approved funding. This funding is part of a broader measure designed to ensure the continued operation of federal agencies until September. The administration contends that this amount was “improperly designated” as emergency funding, a stance challenged by Senators Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Patty Murray, D-Wash., the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The issue arises from a provision in the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which established spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 while permitting emergency funding that falls outside those limits.

The most recent continuing resolution, signed by Trump, included $12.8 billion in emergency funding as permitted by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. However, Trump has declared that he will not spend $3 billion of this total, primarily related to foreign aid, humanitarian support, and initiatives targeting fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking, in addition to military financing and supply chain security investments.

While Collins and Murray acknowledged that presidents hold some discretion in managing emergency funds linked to spending bills, they emphasized that the president cannot selectively allocate funding from emergency appropriations.

“The president lacks a line-item veto and, similarly, he cannot choose specific emergency spending to ignore,” the senators stated. “No matter our opinions on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it is critical for all parties to comply with the law as it stands.”

During a press briefing, Murray reinforced the message to the administration, asserting that the president is obliged to allocate the legislative funding as prescribed by Congress. “We are making it clear to him: ‘This is the law, allocate the funding,’” she affirmed.

This bipartisan discontent comes amid increasing pressure on the administration from the federal judiciary to execute the congressionally approved spending. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously denied the Trump administration’s request to overturn a lower court’s ruling that blocked the president from unilaterally halting federal funding. This ruling originated from a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in January that imposed a broad freeze on federal grants and aid, which the court deemed unlawful. Although the OMB later rescinded the memorandum, the judge noted that its implications and other executive actions to restrict authorized funding were still affecting the situation.

The administration argued that its funding pauses were targeted and limited to certain expenditures not mandated by law, aligning with Trump’s agenda. However, the appeals court characterized the funding freezes as “categorical in nature,” indicating that while the administration claimed its actions were lawful, it failed to substantiate this assertion.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch from withholding funds appropriated by Congress for policy-driven reasons, while allowing for limited scenarios in which the president can freeze funding—typically in cases of unforeseen circumstances or operational efficiencies. In such situations, the White House is required to inform Congress of any funding deferrals and outline a timetable for their release.

Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought have repeatedly challenged the constitutionality of this law and are committed to contesting it in court. While the administration claims that the impoundment law is not applicable in this instance, it may seek to appeal the appellate court’s judgment to the Supreme Court in hopes of establishing new legal precedents that would grant the president greater authority to withhold appropriations.

Source
www.govexec.com