Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Mar 10, 2025

During the week of March 10, the Trump administration issued several executive orders that direct federal agencies to stop spending money on contracts with specific law firms—Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss—and to eliminate or shrink several federal agencies by rejecting their funding requests. The administration cited national security concerns, alleged discriminatory hiring practices, and the need to streamline government operations as justifications. The President also publicly stated he would not comply with a court order to rehire fired federal workers, calling the ruling "absolutely ridiculous."

This might matter because when the President directs agencies to stop spending money that Congress approved—whether by canceling contracts or defunding agencies—it may raise concerns about Congress's constitutional "power of the purse," the principle that elected lawmakers, not the President alone, decide how taxpayer money is spent. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 exists specifically to prevent presidents from unilaterally refusing to spend funds Congress has appropriated. The most likely alternative explanation is that the President has legitimate authority over federal contracting and personnel decisions, and the orders' legal caveats ("to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law") may prevent actual overreach. It's also possible these actions are primarily political messaging with limited practical effect if agencies or courts push back, or that they reflect genuine efforts to address security and compliance concerns in government contracting. However, the stated reasons for targeting these law firms—their pro bono work, hiring practices, and past political associations—raise questions about whether these are routine contracting decisions or actions that may appear to target political opponents.

On Capitol Hill, Senators from both parties debated a continuing resolution to fund the government. Senator Murray warned that the bill stripped out standard spending guardrails, creating "slush funds" for executive discretion. Senator Schumer argued that existing law still prohibits impoundment regardless of the CR's language, but acknowledged the difficult choice legislators faced.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis based on publicly available documents. Floor speeches represent the views of individual legislators, not established facts. Courts have not yet ruled on whether these specific executive actions violate the Impoundment Control Act, and agency compliance with these orders remains uncertain.