Democrats and Republicans Clash Over Trump's Spending Order, Raising Constitutional Concerns
Congressional Democrats and government watchdog groups are sounding alarms over President Donald Trump’s directive to pause the distribution of trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, calling it an unprecedented power grab that threatens the constitutional balance between branches of government.
Legal challenges arose almost immediately. On Tuesday, six Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of nonprofit organizations filed lawsuits seeking to block Trump’s order. Opponents argue that the stakes are enormous.
“We have a constitutional crisis,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. “The point is, the president doesn’t get to decide.”
Senate Democrats expressed concern that the directive was creating uncertainty for vulnerable populations reliant on federal funds, including those dependent on Meals on Wheels, hospitals, and cancer research programs.
“This memo is creating chaos and confusion about whether these resources will be available to them,” warned Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
A federal judge has temporarily halted the order until at least February 3, when a hearing will determine its legality.
Constitutional Authority and Spending Powers
Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the “power of the purse,” controlling federal spending and taxation. While the presidency has broad executive authority, budgetary control has traditionally remained a legislative prerogative.
“I have never seen anything like this,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. “I have never seen the executive branch attempt to unilaterally seize control of spending without regard to congressional law.”
Murray further emphasized the democratic implications: “We cannot function as a democracy if we fail to respect and abide by our agreements in Congress.”
Despite these concerns, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the order.
“This is certainly within the confines of the law,” Leavitt asserted during a press briefing. “The White House Counsel’s Office believes this action is within the president’s power, and therefore he’s doing it.”
Leavitt justified the move as an effort to ensure that all federal spending aligns with Trump’s executive policies. Congressional Republicans echoed this reasoning.
“I hope this sets a precedent to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively, in accordance with what we’ve promised the American people,” said Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), the fourth-ranking House Republican.
Historical Precedents and Legal Framework
A 1974 law mandates that the president must seek congressional approval to withhold funds that have been appropriated. Additionally, in a 1996 ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the president cannot unilaterally cancel portions of congressional spending, striking down the line-item veto as unconstitutional.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, deemed the White House’s directive “blatantly unconstitutional.”
“Article I gives Congress the authority to appropriate funds, while Article II states that the president executes the laws passed by Congress,” King explained. “This is one of the most serious attempts at usurping congressional power in American history.”
In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memo arguing that “temporary pauses” on spending fall within the president’s authority and have been exercised by past administrations to ensure compliance with new policies.
Leavitt reassured that key individual assistance programs, including Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and welfare, would remain unaffected. However, multiple states reported disruptions in service portals on Tuesday.
Republican Support for Trump’s Move
Most congressional Republicans defended the order as a prudent measure to reevaluate spending priorities and eliminate waste. They argued that the funds would eventually be allocated as intended by Congress but that the temporary pause was necessary.
“Our spending is out of control,” said Rep. McClain. “If there’s something we can do to rein it in immediately, why shouldn’t we?”
Republican lawmakers characterized the pause as a safeguard against last-minute spending under the previous administration.
“The money eventually would go out, I’d assume,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “It’s fair to verify how funds were allocated in the final days of the Biden administration.”
However, some Republicans expressed reservations. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) noted that his constituents were raising concerns.
“I hope this is short-lived because real people depend on these grants—real people with real jobs,” Bacon said. “I’m not a lawyer, but if Congress appropriated the money, I don’t see how they can just stop it.”
By Tuesday afternoon, Bacon walked back his earlier comments, saying he was relieved to learn the order’s scope was more limited than he initially feared.
Constitutional Law Experts Weigh In
Some constitutional law experts share the Democrats’ concerns. Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck described the order as a “flagrant violation” of the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits presidents from unilaterally halting congressionally approved spending.
As legal battles unfold, the dispute over Trump’s spending order is poised to become a defining test of executive power and the limits of presidential authority.
