Clearly illegal
This isn't about cutting the size of government. It's about further concentrating power in Trump's hands.
As of 5 pm ET today, Trump will halt tens of billions of dollars in federal spending.
Although Social Security, Medicare, and other payments to individuals will not be affected, all other domestic spending will stop — grants, loans, spending to research, charities, universities, community projects, climate, infrastructure, foreign aid, and so on.
The scale of Trump’s order is wildly broad — it cites federal spending totaling $3 trillion — and argues that federal spending must be aligned with “Presidential priorities” while reviews are undertaken.
Officials then have until February 10 to report to the Office of Management and Budget. By then, the OMB will likely be run Russ Vought, Trump’s nominee — and, not incidentally, the chief author of Project 2025 — who has made no secret of his determination to slash government spending (while also delivering a huge tax cut to the wealthy).
Last week, Trump barred certain spending he disagreed with, including programs involving “diversity, equity and inclusion” and and nongovernment organizations he believes undermine the national interest.
He also ordered a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid spending, which has jeopardized congressionally authorized foreign assistance including military aid to Ukraine and the distribution of medications in Africa and developing nations.
Friends, this is illegal.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power of the purse, and Congress approved these payments.
While Trump has the power to pause spending, subject to review, this isn’t really about pausing. It’s about stopping. That’s called “impounding.”
In 1974, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act, in response to Nixon’s abuses of power. The Act bars a president from not spending money Congress has appropriated.
Trump believes the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional — but the Supreme Court determines what acts of Congress are not constitutional. And in the 1975 case of Train vs. City of New York, the Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Act.
So where is this heading?
Apparently, Trump wants the current Supreme Court to reverse its 1975 ruling — something that the Court rarely does, especially when the original decision was unanimous. But, as it displayed in Roe v. Wade, the Roberts court has few compunctions about reversing itself.
Big picture: This is not a conservative ploy to shrink the size of government. It’s a neo-fascist ploy to concentrate even more power in Trump’s hands.
Robert Reich, Substack