Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Apr 7, 2025

During the week of April 7, 2025, several government actions raised questions about whether the executive branch is properly spending money that Congress approved—or whether it is holding back or redirecting funds on its own authority.

Most directly, during a Cabinet meeting, President Trump stated that his administration is withholding $400 million from Columbia University and $8 billion from Harvard over disagreements about campus policies. This might matter because when a president holds back money Congress has already approved for spending—without going through the legal process to formally cancel those funds—it could undermine Congress's "power of the purse," the constitutional authority that ensures elected legislators, not the president alone, decide how taxpayer money is spent. The most likely alternative explanation is that these funds are paused during legitimate compliance reviews under existing civil rights laws, and no final withholding decision has been made. It is also possible the cited dollar figures are approximate, that formal rescission requests are forthcoming, or that the administration is using the withholdings to prompt Congress to clarify funding conditions for universities.

In a separate action, an executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey directed all federal agencies to cancel contracts with the firm and suspend its security clearances. The order cites national security concerns, but its text points to the firm's legal work challenging administration policies as a central reason for action. Directing contract cancellations in connection with a firm's legal advocacy raises questions about whether spending power is being used to discourage lawful opposition rather than to address legitimate procurement or security concerns. The firm may indeed pose security risks as described in the order, but the justification's focus on the firm's litigation activities is notable.

Additionally, an executive order on TikTok directed the Justice Department not to enforce a law Congress passed with broad bipartisan support, and granted blanket immunity for any violations during the delay period. The order cites ongoing foreign policy negotiations as justification. While presidents have some discretion over enforcement priorities, prospectively erasing legal liability for violations of a statute goes further than typical enforcement choices.

Limitations: This analysis is AI-generated and based on publicly available documents and presidential statements. It does not reflect internal government deliberations or final legal determinations about whether specific fund withholdings comply with the law.