Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Mar 3, 2025

During the week of March 3, 2025, several government actions raised questions about whether the executive branch is respecting Congress's role in controlling federal spending. An executive order targeted a specific law firm for potentially politically motivated reasons and directed agencies to cancel contracts and redirect funds. Members of Congress reported being denied information they need to make spending decisions. And senior officials made statements questioning whether the executive branch must follow court orders.

This might matter because Congress's control over federal spending—known as the "power of the purse"—is one of the most important checks on presidential power. If the executive branch can redirect contracted funds, block lawmakers from getting budget information, or ignore court orders about spending, it could undermine the system that ensures taxpayer money is spent as the people's elected representatives intended.

The most notable action was Executive Order 14230, which ordered all federal agencies to stop doing business with the law firm Perkins Coie and to terminate contracts with companies that work with the firm. The order cited the firm's past work for Hillary Clinton and association with Democratic-aligned donors. While presidents have some authority over government contracts, ordering agencies to cut ties with a private company based on its political activities—and to redirect those funds—goes beyond typical procurement decisions. It's possible this falls within the president's legitimate contracting authority or reflects a broader effort to enforce federal contracting standards, and the order includes language limiting actions to what the law permits. But the explicitly political justification could suggest the action is motivated more by political grievance than by national security or regulatory compliance.

Separately, Rep. Torres described in a floor speech how congressional budget writers are being denied information about DOGE's plans for federal agencies—even as they're asked to fund those same agencies. This could reflect bureaucratic growing pains, miscommunication in a new operation, or delays in establishing information-sharing channels, rather than intentional obstruction. But it directly prevents Congress from doing its spending oversight job.

Senator Durbin's floor speech documented the firing of 18 inspectors general without the legally required 30-day notice to Congress, alongside statements from multiple senior officials questioning whether the executive must follow court orders. These statements could represent legitimate constitutional debate about presidential authority, but the breadth of officials making them—from the Vice President to DOJ nominees—suggests a coordinated position rather than individual opinions.

Limitations: This analysis draws partly on speeches by opposition lawmakers, who have political incentives to highlight concerns. The executive order's actual implementation and legal challenges are still unfolding. The concern rate is based on a small number of reviewed documents, limiting its reliability. This is AI-generated analysis, not a finding of fact.