If we expected eventually to reach a point of constitutional crisis—well, we’re there now.
Donald Trump’s superpower is shamelessness. In a system that depends to any degree on the people within it having moral scruples and showing self-restraint, he finds those gaps and breaks them wide open. He does it openly and shamelessly, and the rush of power that thrills his supporters is the sense that they, too, can stop trying to be goody-two-shoes losers and be shameless, too.
In this case, Trump has begun his administration with a direct and comprehensive assault on Congress’s power of the purse.
As we plunge into a period of constant constitutional crisis and upheaval—and a merry Tariff Day to everyone this Saturday—please supporting my efforts to roll back this tide by subscribing or donating.
The Defreezers
Let’s start with a little Constitution 101. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the federal budget and direct federal spending. Article II gives the president the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws, including the budgets passed by Congress, which he is supposed to put into effect. In short, the federal budget is not the personal slush fund of the president, to be spent or not at his discretion. It is definitely not a political slush fund, to be used to bribe or extort political support.
Yet that is exactly how Trump has decided to use the taxpayers’ money.
Trump has done a lot of bad things during his first week in office, but if I had to pick a central one, it would be this.
In his first week in office, Mr. Trump barred spending on certain initiatives whose mission he disagreed with, including programs involving “diversity, equity and inclusion” and funding to nongovernmental organizations he believes undermine the national interest. He also ordered a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid spending to review it for any conflicts with his priorities, making exceptions for military assistance to Israel and Egypt.
That freeze has jeopardized a broad swath of congressionally authorized aid, like military assistance to Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion, helping pay the salaries of a Kurdish-led militia guarding Islamic State detainees in northeast Syria and the distribution of anti-HIV medication in Africa and developing countries.
By the start of his second week, Mr. Trump signaled an escalation. On Monday, the White House, in a memo, ordered a temporary halt to “all federal financial assistance” like loans and grants on domestic soil as well. While Social Security and Medicare were exempted, the memo said it would apply to as much as $3 trillion in government programs and activities.
Should the freeze become permanent for a program that Congress approved but the White House does not like, it could set off a court fight over the constitutionality of a law banning unilateral “impoundment” by presidents.
This had immediate negative consequences, disrupting billions of dollars of scientific research funding that was canceled during the middle of a grant-review cycle. For example:
As a result of these disruptions, NIH staff has reported being unable to meet with study participants or recruit patients into clinical trials, delays submitting research findings to science journals, and rescinded job offers.
Some hospitals and medical programs feared having to shut down.
But the constitutional consequences are the big picture, because the president asserting unilateral control over spending would destroy Congress as an institution. As Maine Senator Angus King put it, “if this stands, then Congress may as well adjourn, because the implications of this is the executive can pick and choose which congressional enactments they will execute.” If Congress can no longer determine how federal money is spent, then it has no power and exists merely to give important titles and fancy offices to the president’s political lackeys.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Tracinski Letter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.