Trump's Spending Pauses: Historical Conventions and Statutory Text

If controversy generated income, President Trump and Elon Musk would each be worth gazillions more than they were before January 20th. Consider Trump’s decision to enlist Musk’s help in rooting out needless expenditures by the administrative state, which has sparked considerable opposition and outrage. The New York Times reported late in January that the Office of Management and Budget said it would scrutinize approximately 2,600 federal programs. So far, that seems both appropriate and necessary.

Consider some large-scale numbers. Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, reported that he had discovered $20 billion that the Biden Administration had “parked at an outside financial institution,” and that “a Biden EPA political appointee,” recorded in an undercover operation, had talked about how “they were ‘tossing gold bars off the Titanic,’ rushing to get billions of your tax dollars out the door before Inauguration Day.” The U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development identified $1.9 billion of funds that the Biden Administration “misplaced” after earmarking them for unnecessary financial services administration. Finally, according to the New York Post, DOGE recently reported that “some $4.7 trillion in payments from the Treasury Department”—an almost unfathomable number—"were missing a critical tracking code, which made tracing the transactions ‘almost impossible’” (emphasis added). Who knows where that money went? So far, no one who does is talking, suggesting they have something to hide.

How is that possible? Well, maybe it was done intentionally to disguise specific payments that could not withstand public scrutiny. Some particular sums discovered since January 20 are quite shocking. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “DOGE discovered $2 billion in taxpayer funds set aside for a fledgling nonprofit linked to perennial Georgia Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams,” an organization, EPA Administrator Zeldin noted, that “reported just $100 in revenue in 2023.”

There is more.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and some others have said that among the dubious funding grants already discovered are expenditures that no reasonable person would deem a valuable expenditure of taxpayers’ money. Spe-cific disbursements include (1) $56 million to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt, (2) a $20 million grant to create an Iraqi version of “Sesame Street,” (3) more than $9 million intended for people in Syria wound up in the hands of vio-lent terrorists, (4) $2.5 million to advance Diversity, Equity, and Integration (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces, (5) $2.5 million to build electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam (6) $2 million “for promoting sex changes in Guatemala,” (7) $500,000 for the expansion of (inter alia) atheism in Nepal, (8) $70,000 to produce a DEI musical event in Ireland; (9) $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, (10) $68,000 for dance classes in Wuhan, China, (11) $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru, and (12) funds designed for economic relief in Ukraine went to “models and designers” for “fashion weeks” in New York City, London, and Paris. Atop that, the Government Accountability Office found that, during the Obama Administration, the federal government spent $27 million for what has been called “departing gift bags” to illegal aliens being deported to Latin America. There are likely more surprises out there that DOGE has not yet had the opportunity to discover.

Put all that together and it is easy to understand why many Americans, like Pop-eye, feel that, “That’s all I can stands. I can’t stands no more!”

Yet—mirabile dictu!—not everyone agrees. Put aside the criticisms from the recipients of largess and their benefactors, who are losing lollypops to receive or dispense. Several federal courts have enjoined the implementation of different executive orders that Trump has issued since being sworn into office. Some, like the New York Times editorial board, have suggested that we might soon have a “constitutional crisis” on our hands because the President might decide to defy one or more of the federal court orders that have paused many of his executive orders—even though President Trump has made clear that he will not defy a court order. Andrew Clyde, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he was drafting articles of impeachment for one of the district court judges who has enjoined a Trump action.

Calm down, folks. We live in a time when everyone wants everything done, not just immediately, but yesterday, and they believe that screaming at the top of their lungs, or using ALL CAPS in a written document or poster enhances the worth of whatever they say or write. In lieu of frantic behavior, we should clarify our discussion of the issues.

Let’s focus on Trump’s decision to use Elon Musk to audit government expenditures.

The Trump administration took office just over a month ago, and the federal government has paused—paused, not ended—the disbursement of some—some, not all—federal funds appropriated by Congress for various purposes and recipients. The pause has been ordered to review the legality and wisdom of funds not yet in private hands or subject to claw-back. When considering the legality of Trump’s actions, keep these four factors in mind:

First, the federal government is currently operating under a continuing resolution, the American Relief Act, 2025, which extends the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, but the American Relief Act runs only through March 14. If not extended, that would require the government to cease funding all but essential services. (Guards at the Federal Bureau of Prisons will not need to leave and un-lock all the cells as they go.) Second, on January 20 a new administration was thrown into the advent of a new congressional budget cycle that could result in the recission of all or some of the already appropriated but contested funds. As Jeffrey Toobin recently explained in the New York Times, “The president and his Republican majority in Congress are preparing to pass next year’s federal budget, which may codify the spending cuts that Mr. Trump is now trying to impose unilaterally.” Third, elections matter. In November 2024, the electorate rejected the policies of the Biden administration in favor of the policies that Trump repeatedly said during the campaign that he would pursue if re-elected, which he was. Trump has merely paused disbursements that have not yet been legally ob-ligated so that he and his lieutenants can decide whether those payments should go forward. And fourth, no private party has a constitutional right to receive federal funds for any purpose, whether they are sought for education, welfare, or medical care, let alone transgender operas or comic books.

Trump’s decision to pause any further disbursements under these guidelines is an entirely legitimate undertaking. To avoid dissatisfying its own constituents, every administration, Democratic or Republican, tries to shovel as much money, appointments, or other goodies out the door before a President of the opposing party takes the oath of office. Neither party is a virgin in this regard. To deny that is to earn multiple Washington Post Pinocchios. As noted above, Musk has discovered a host of disbursements that most Americans would never approve, likely by a 90-10 percent vote. The public has benefitted greatly by learning about those shenanigans.

A federal district court judge in Rhode Island, however, has temporarily enjoined federal officials from refusing to pay out funds that, he concluded, Congress has ordered the President to disburse via one or more appropriations laws. (Put aside the oddity that a temporary pause in a temporary payment pause is an oxymoron unless the district court meant that the executive branch must immediately give the plaintiffs everything they want before any hearing or a trial.) That ruling is the focus of much of the furor and debate over the constitutionality of what Trump has done or isn’t doing. It turns out that there is far less here than meets the eye.

Start with the claim that Trump has acted unconstitutionally by pausing the disbursements of congressionally appropriated funds. The argument is that (1) Congress has the sole authority to appropriate funds, and (2) the President cannot refuse to disburse funds that Congress has appropriated. The first point is true. The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, Article I, § 9, makes clear that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]” The problem with that argument is that Point 2 is not true.

The Appropriations Clause does not require the President to disburse any funds that Congress has appropriated. Where Congress has granted flexibility over disbursement, the President has the legal right to use that flexibility – as he has with this order. Further, the Appropriations Clause merely keeps the President from using the federal treasury as a piggy bank that he can dip into whenever he pleases to pay for whatever expenses he chooses. That’s it; it’s a prohibition, not an order. If Trump never disbursed any appropriated funds, he would not violate the Appropriations Clause.

Keep in mind, however, that Trump has not permanently refused to disburse any or all funds that Congress has appropriated; he has merely paused their obligation and distribution until he and his administration can decide whether funds not yet legally obligated should be canceled by Congress. That delay is unconstitutional only if the Appropriations Clause requires the President immediately to disburse appropriated funds. Yet, as the text of the Appropriations Clause makes clear, the clause does not require the President to hand out funds at all, let alone immediately once an appropriations “Bill” becomes a “Law.”

Yes, the Article II Take Care Clause directs that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[.]” But that clause does not require the President to spend funds immediately and reasonably delaying a disbursement to decide whether to allow it to go forward after a change in administrations—particularly given some of the very questionable payments here—qualifies as “faithfully” executing the law under any reasonable interpretation of that term.

The result: There is no merit to the claim that Trump has acted unconstitutionally.

Critics also argue that, by pausing disbursement, Trump has violated the Congressional Budget Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBICA, codified at 2 U.S.C. §§ 681-88)). Adopted in response to President Richard Nixon’s claim that he could withhold whatever appropriated funds he thought unnecessary, the Impoundment Control Act created a procedure that the President could use whenever he concludes that “all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided” or that “such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons.” The President would submit to each house of Congress a “special message” specifying the amount to be rescinded and the reasons for his determination. If Congress does not agree to the recission within 45 days of the President’s submission (assuming that Congress was in continuous session without a delay more than three days), the funds must be made available for their intended purpose and to their intended recipient. The act creates a parallel procedure for the “deferral of budget authority.”

Has Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by pausing the distributions? The answer is also “No.”

As noted above, Trump has not refused to spend appropriated funds or sought to defer their payment past the current fiscal year; he has merely paused the payouts to learn whether the 119th Congress will revise the current appropriations law, which expires in less than a month. The Impoundment Control Act does not demand that he distribute every appropriated dollar immediately.

Has Trump violated an appropriations law by pausing federal spending? Again, the answer is “No.”

The relevant law is the 466-page Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. No. 118-42, 138 Stat. 25 (2024), as modified by the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. No. 118-83, 138 Stat. 1524 (2024), and by the American Relief Act, 2025 (H.R. 10545 (2024)). I have only skimmed that act, but it does not support the argument that Trump has acted unlawfully. (I must confess that I have not read the 725-page Inflation Reduction Act, on which some of Trump’s critics rely. I’ve done some bad things in my life, but nothing so bad that I need to be punished that severely). Nothing in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, requires the immediate disbursement of every dollar Congress appropriated. Nor does the act establish a date certain by which its funds must be dispensed, or even a schedule of distributions that the President must follow. That is critical.

Section 5 of that law states: “The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024.” The act then goes on to identify the sums to be paid out and the purposes for which they may be used. Yet, the act does not specify the date by which checks must be cut. For example, Division A, which deals with military construction, provides (in part) as follows: “[f]or acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and operation of facilities in support of the functions of the Commander in Chief, $2,022,775,000, to remain available until September 30, 2028.” The only date specified is the last date by which those funds may be lawfully spent, not when a particular sum must be disbursed before then.

Where does that leave us? If Congress does not direct the President to distribute every dollar immediately or according to any particular schedule, the President is fully compliant with an appropriations law if he waits until the last day of the fiscal year to disburse the appropriated funds. Under federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1102), the fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year. As a result, if Congress specified no date in the American Relief Act, 2025, by which appropriated funds must be disbursed, Trump could wait until September 30, 2028, to write the checks. Trump, therefore, has not violated that act.

If you’re wondering what “historical conventions” have to do with “statutory text” (and why the former term is in the title of this essay), wait no longer. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 became law 50 years ago, and beaucoup legal water has flowed downstream since then. In 1974, Congress thought it could de-feat a presidential proposal to defer spending through a one-house legislative veto. The belief expired when the Supreme Court held legislative vetoes unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha. In 1974, Congress regularly passed concurrent budget resolutions that set the terms for debate over the forthcoming appropriations bills. That practice has largely ridden off into the sunset given the highly polarized nature of our politics. Appropriations laws have taken the place of budgets. In 1974, federal expenditures were (approximately) $269.4 billion. In 2023, those outlays were estimated to have increased to (approximately) $6.2 trillion. Even the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen—who once said, with regard to federal spending, ““A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”—would be flabbergasted by the size of today’s expenditures.

The conventions that provided the background to the Impoundment Control Act have gone the way of the slide rule. What matters today are appropriations laws, specifically the text of those laws. That is how the Supreme Court interprets statutes these days, regardless of people's assumptions when a bill becomes law as to how it should be read. Given that approach, what matters to this controversy is whether Congress fixed a date for expenditures to be disbursed. Trump’s critics have identified none.

The bottom line is this: Trump has not violated the Constitution or any statute by pausing the disbursement of funds to learn whether the Biden Administration acted fraudulently, wastefully, or abusively. The two-word Scottish verdict appropriately responds to his critics: “Not proven.”

Paul J. Larkin is the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center of the Heritage Foundation.