Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Jun 23, 2025

This week, three government actions raised concerns about whether the executive branch is bypassing Congress's authority over federal spending and law enforcement. On June 27, the President announced plans to immediately "freeze unnecessary funding" following a Supreme Court ruling that limits courts' ability to block executive actions nationwide. On June 24, an executive order directed the Justice Department not to enforce a law Congress passed banning TikTok, and went further by granting retroactive legal protection to anyone who ignored that law. And on June 25, a member of Congress described being physically denied entry to an immigration detention facility despite a law specifically granting congressional access for oversight.

This might matter because Congress's control over federal spending—often called "the power of the purse"—is the primary way elected legislators check executive power. If the President can freeze funds Congress approved, suspend laws Congress passed, or block members from seeing how tax dollars are used, Congress's ability to serve as a meaningful check on executive action could be significantly weakened. The most likely benign explanation for the funding freeze language is that it refers to standard budget proposals the President plans to submit to Congress for approval, or to temporary holds pending further legislative review, rather than unilateral action. The administration has also framed such measures as necessary for fiscal responsibility. For the TikTok order, the administration argues it is exercising normal prosecutorial discretion while negotiating a deal and protecting national security interests. And for the facility access issue, unforeseen security concerns or operational disruptions may have caused the denial rather than a deliberate policy of obstruction.

However, the combination of all three—announced funding freezes, blanket non-enforcement of a law with retroactive immunity, and physical denial of oversight access—is more difficult to explain as routine government operations when viewed together. The President's own framing tied the funding freeze to reduced judicial oversight, suggesting urgency to act before new legal challenges emerge.

Limitations: This analysis is based on public statements, an executive order, and a congressional floor speech. Presidential rhetoric about freezing funds does not prove that specific appropriated money has been withheld. Courts have not yet ruled on the legality of the TikTok enforcement delay or any specific impoundment action. The facility access account reflects one side of the encounter.