Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of May 5, 2025

This week, several government actions raised questions about whether the executive branch is properly spending money that Congress approved. At issue is a basic principle: once Congress passes a spending bill and the President signs it, the executive branch is generally required by law to spend that money as directed.

This might matter because the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent belongs to Congress under the Constitution. If the President can simply refuse to release funds he disagrees with—without going through the legal process for canceling spending—it could undermine Congress's most fundamental authority over the federal budget.

The most specific case involves food aid for malnourished children. In a floor speech on May 7, Representative Seth Magaziner stated that although Congress approved and President Trump signed FY2025 funding that covers ready-to-use therapeutic food, "not a single dollar" has been spent on it in over two months. It's possible this reflects normal bureaucratic delays, logistical challenges, or international supply chain issues rather than deliberate withholding—but two months without any spending, combined with a proposed elimination of the program in next year's budget, may make routine delay a less convincing explanation.

Separately, an executive order directed all federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding NPR and PBS, calling their coverage biased. The order sets a June 30 deadline for changing grant rules. The order includes the phrase "to the maximum extent allowed by law," which supporters say shows respect for legal boundaries. The administration may also argue this represents a policy stance intended to promote impartiality in public broadcasting, pending legal review, rather than an immediate mandate. Critics counter that the directive's operational detail goes beyond suggestion and could be interpreted as an order to withhold congressionally approved funds.

A speech by Senator Cornyn praised DOGE's cost-cutting and proposed that Congress use rescissions—a legal tool for canceling spending—to lock in those savings. This would be lawful if Congress follows the proper process, though the framing raises questions about whether spending reductions are originating from the executive rather than Congress.

Limitations: Most flagged documents are speeches by opposition lawmakers, who have political incentives to frame events critically. The actual legal status of these funding decisions would require independent verification. This is AI-generated analysis, not a finding of fact.