By Emily Patrolia
There’s a battle brewing between President Trump and Congress over who really controls the federal budget. In some of Trump’s first executive orders of his second term, he called for a pause on the disbursement of particular funding already appropriated by Congress. And Trump’s pick for Budget Director, Russell Vought, said during his nomination hearings that he plans to fight to withhold funds that Congress previously appropriated in law. This could have major impacts on how agencies are funded and the balance of power in DC—but is it legal? What would the implications be for ocean and coastal priorities? Let’s dive in.
Section seven of the January 20 Unleashing American Energy Executive Order requires a pause on disbursement of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law/BIL) until agencies can do a case-by-case review. On January 21, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a clarification that the pause is limited to funds supporting certain clean energy projects.
You’re probably wondering, “What happens when the president decides not to spend money Congress has already approved? Is it allowed?”
Here’s the deal: Per the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. It decides how much money gets spent and where it goes. If a president withholds or delays funds Congress set aside for specific programs, it’s called budget impoundment.
Congress doesn’t like when the president takes its power away, so it put some rules in place with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law says the executive branch has to spend the money Congress allocates, meaning the president can’t just stop cash flow on a whim.
If the president wants to cancel funds entirely (rescission), they have to ask Congress, which in turn has 45 days to give the thumbs up or down. No action? Money flows as planned. Temporary delays (deferrals) are allowed, but they can’t be policy-driven, must be temporary, and must be for specific operational reasons, such as programmatic delays. Congress can only override a deferral by passing legislation. When both chambers are controlled by the president’s own party, Congress keeping the president in check gets tricky.
At its core, the Impoundment Control Act is intended to keep the president from going rogue with the budget and ensure Congress stays in charge of spending. It’s all about checks and balances. Still, some administrations have tried to get creative with impoundment, using it to push their agendas or cut costs. This has stirred up plenty of debate, and critics warn that bending these rules could mess with the balance of power between the branches of government.
Trump’s Team Takes Aim at the Impoundment Control Act
Trump allies are pushing the idea that the president should have the power to hold back funds Congress has approved, even though the Impoundment Control Act says otherwise.
Elon Musk—who now leads the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—thinks the law is unconstitutional. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Musk and former DOGE co-lead Vivek Ramaswamy predicted that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority might agree with them.
Trump’s Budget Director pick for a second term, Russell Vought, is all-in on challenging the Impoundment Control Act. He’s called it “unconstitutional and nonsensical,” arguing it ties the president’s hands when it comes to cutting waste. Vought’s think tank, the Center for Renewing America, published reports and analyses outlining how Congress’ budget appropriations are more of a spending cap than a mandate, noting that—in the center's eyes—impoundment is just the president choosing not to spend all the money.
During his recent Senate confirmation hearings, Vought faced intense scrutiny over this stance, but he maintained that he and President Trump believe the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. The position raised concerns among senators from both parties. During one such hearing, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-KY) underscored that "the power of the purse is Congress,” adding that if Congress “appropriates something for a cause, that's where it's supposed to go."
House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-OK-04), leader of the committee that writes our annual spending bills, isn’t gearing up for a showdown with Trump on this—though he did hint there are limits to executive power. “The Constitution’s the Constitution,” Cole told reporters. “You can’t take away congressional oversight.”
Bottom line? Trump’s allies are gunning for more presidential power over spending, but this fight is far from settled. It’s shaping up to be a big test of how far Republicans in Congress—and the courts—are willing to let the executive branch go.
Implications for Ocean and Coastal Priorities
Here’s how overriding the Impoundment Control Act could impact ocean issues:
Withholding of funds: Ocean technology, fisheries, weather data, and coastal resilience are all overwhelmingly bipartisan issues. Both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress support them through federal appropriations, even when the president’s budget request includes cuts to related programs. If the president gains more leeway to impound funds, many programs that are funded with federal dollars—which are carefully negotiated by Members of Congress on behalf of their constituents—could see delayed or reduced funding.
Shifting priorities over time: A more empowered executive branch could redirect funds away from long-term investments toward initiatives aligned with its political agenda. In practice, this would mean we could see major funding swings every time an administration changes (which lately has been every four years). Yo-yoing of this kind would make it difficult to sustain progress, ultimately wasting money and resources.
Weakened oversight: The Impoundment Control Act ensures Congress retains control over how taxpayer dollars are spent, reflecting bipartisan priorities. Weakening this oversight could allow an administration to bypass the legislative consensus that often underpins investments in ocean and coastal science.
Uncertainty for researchers and stakeholders: The possibility of impounded funds creates uncertainty for the scientists, engineers, and policymakers who rely on stable federal funding to plan multi-year projects and provide services to communities that rely on them.
If the new administration is successful in overriding the Impoundment Control Act, it will have broad implications for all future presidents, giving more power to the executive branch, taking it away from congressional representatives, and allowing for greater swings in federal action and spending when one party or the other holds the White House.
Stay informed as the conversation continues by signing up for our (FREE!) weekly ocean policy report. Ready to get involved in DC? Our team is here to help!