Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Feb 24, 2025

During the week of February 24, 2025, the President signed several executive orders that, taken together, create new ways for the White House to control how federal agencies spend money that Congress has already approved. One order directs the Office of Management and Budget to adjust funding for independent agencies like the SEC and FTC to "advance the President's policies." Another tells agencies across the government to stop enforcing regulations the administration considers overreaching, effectively pulling resources away from programs Congress funded. A third directs OMB to reject budget requests for specific organizations Congress created, including the U.S. Institute of Peace. The administration has framed these actions as efforts to improve government efficiency, reduce regulatory overreach, and ensure agencies are aligned with current policy priorities.

This might matter because Congress's control over federal spending—often called "the power of the purse"—could be affected if the executive branch can redirect or block funds without following the process Congress established. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed specifically to prevent presidents from refusing to spend money Congress appropriated, after President Nixon attempted exactly that. If the executive branch can achieve similar results through OMB directives, apportionment adjustments, or wholesale enforcement shutdowns without going through the required congressional process, it could undermine this fundamental check on presidential authority.

Members of Congress responded on the floor. Rep. Sherman documented specific reported impacts: 300 nuclear security personnel fired, VA cancer trials halted, and FAA safety staff dismissed. Sen. Schumer highlighted cuts to aviation safety and the World Trade Center Health Program. These represent reported real-world degradation of services Congress funded.

The most likely alternative explanation is that presidents have broad authority to set enforcement priorities and propose reorganizations—these orders may simply be aggressive but lawful exercises of that discretion. Courts have generally given the executive branch significant latitude in how it allocates enforcement resources. Several orders also contain language limiting their scope to what is "consistent with applicable law," which could prevent the most extreme interpretations. It is also possible that these actions represent a legitimate effort to streamline government operations, eliminate duplication, and align federal agencies with current policy goals—objectives that fall within the executive branch's general administrative authority. Congress could also respond by passing legislation or using oversight to block implementation, meaning the system of checks may ultimately function as designed.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis based on published documents. How agencies actually implement these orders, and whether courts intervene, remains to be seen.