Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Mar 24, 2025

This week, the President took several actions that challenge Congress's control over federal spending. On March 24, he sent a formal message to Congress refusing to approve nearly $3 billion in emergency spending that Congress had already written into law, calling the money part of a political "side deal" rather than genuine emergencies. He also signed executive orders directed at two major law firms — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — directing the government to suspend their employees' security clearances and move to end their contracts, based on the firms' legal work on cases the administration opposes.

This might matter because the Constitution gives Congress — not the President — the authority to decide how federal money is spent. If the President can block emergency funds Congress approved, or redirect government contracts away from firms based on their legal advocacy rather than their job performance, it might challenge the spending laws that aim to keep executive power in check. Since 1974, the Impoundment Control Act has prohibited presidents from simply refusing to spend money Congress appropriated.

There are alternative explanations worth considering. On the emergency funding, the President may be exercising a legitimate role in certifying emergency designations — the legal framework does involve executive participation — and this could be intended to prompt Congress to clarify standards for emergency spending. On the law firm orders, the administration cites national security concerns and argues these firms pose genuine risks when handling classified material. It's also possible these actions are part of a broader effort to streamline government operations or are opening positions in negotiations rather than final policy. However, the pattern — citing firms' legal clients and pro bono work as justification, while one firm (Skadden, Arps) has already publicly agreed to redirect $100 million in pro bono services — suggests these orders are producing real-world effects on the legal profession's willingness to take on cases the government dislikes.

In the Senate, opposition to the nomination of James Bishop as OMB Deputy Director highlighted concerns that his confirmation would further enable the withholding of congressionally approved funds.

Limitations: This analysis is based on published government documents and AI-assisted review, not independent investigation. Courts have not yet ruled on the legality of several of these actions, and similar executive orders from previous weeks are being challenged in litigation.