The week of March 10, 2025 produced a dense cluster of executive actions and legislative responses bearing directly on the constitutional appropriations power. Six documents were assessed as clearly concerning and four as potentially concerning out of eleven reviewed in detail, continuing a seven-week streak of elevated concern in this category.

The most structurally significant actions were a pair of executive orders targeting specific law firms. Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP directs agencies to "terminate any contract" with or related to Perkins Coie "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law," effectively ordering the cessation of spending on obligations that arose through the normal appropriations-contracting pipeline. Executive Order 14237—Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss extends the same template to a second firm, directing contract termination and suspension of government services. These orders matter because they may constitute de facto impoundment—executive withholding of congressionally appropriated funds—without the statutory rescission process required by the Impoundment Control Act, which exists precisely to prevent the President from unilaterally nullifying Congress's spending decisions. This may raise concerns about the integrity of the congressional appropriations power, the constitutional mechanism through which elected legislators control federal spending. The most plausible counter-argument is that the executive retains inherent authority over contracting decisions and security clearances, and that agencies routinely terminate contracts for cause; the orders' "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law" caveat could be read as preserving legal guardrails. A second alternative is that these orders are primarily signals of political displeasure with limited practical effect if agencies decline to act or courts intervene. A third is that the firms' alleged misconduct (e.g., the Steele dossier, discriminatory hiring) provides a legitimate national security or civil rights basis independent of political retaliation, and that the orders are part of a broader effort to ensure government contractors meet security and compliance standards.

Executive Order 14238—Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy directs OMB and agency heads to "reject funding requests" for enumerated entities and reduce their operations to the "minimum presence and function required by law." While framed as an efficiency measure aimed at streamlining government operations, the mechanism instructs budget officials to deny funding based on executive policy preferences rather than statutory mandates, implicating the same impoundment concerns.

Presidential statements reinforced the pattern. In Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Aboard Air Force One, the President characterized a federal court order requiring rehiring of fired federal workers as "absolutely ridiculous," stated "I don't think that's going to be happening," and argued that compliance requires "a decision from the Supreme Court." This explicit refusal to comply with a lower court order is significant because it signals that judicial enforcement of appropriations-related constraints—including orders to maintain staffing levels funded by Congress—may be contested or ignored.

Congressional floor debate reflected acute bipartisan tension over these dynamics. Senator Murray's floor speech on government funding characterized the House continuing resolution as deliberately omitting "typical, detailed spending directives," converting appropriations accounts into "slush funds" that cede discretion to the executive. Senator Schumer, in two floor speeches on March 14 and earlier that day, warned that a government shutdown would allow DOGE to "shift into overdrive" by exploiting shutdown authorities to make unilateral essential/nonessential worker determinations, citing a February 26 OMB directive. Schumer explicitly stated that "nothing in the CR changes the Impoundment Control Act." These speeches document a congressional minority's formal objections but also reveal the majority's acquiescence to a CR structure that weakens traditional appropriations guardrails.

The convergence of executive orders directing contract terminations, an executive order instructing OMB to reject funding for specific agencies, presidential statements rejecting judicial authority over spending-related workforce decisions, and a continuing resolution that removes standard spending directives constitutes a multi-vector challenge to the congressional appropriations power during a single week.

Limitations: This analysis relies on AI-assessed public documents and congressional floor statements, which represent advocacy positions. Actual agency compliance with these orders, and any judicial proceedings challenging them, may substantially alter the practical impact. The "to the extent permitted by applicable law" caveats in the executive orders may prove operationally significant.