Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Aug 25, 2025

This week, President Trump signed several executive orders that direct federal agencies to identify funding they could cut off from cities and states that don't change their criminal justice policies. Two orders target jurisdictions with "cashless bail" policies—one focused on Washington, D.C., and another applying nationally. Both instruct agencies to find federal grants and contracts that could be "suspended or terminated" to encourage these jurisdictions to require cash bail. The administration frames these actions as necessary to address public safety concerns and rising crime.

This could matter because Congress typically decides how federal money gets spent, and the Impoundment Control Act generally prohibits the President from refusing to distribute funds Congress has approved. If the executive branch can threaten to withhold already-approved grants to force unrelated policy changes, it could weaken Congress's constitutional control over federal spending—a foundational check on presidential power.

A separate order on prosecuting flag burning directs the Attorney General to pursue legal challenges to narrow First Amendment protections established by the Supreme Court in 1989, and to use immigration penalties against people engaged in flag desecration. The administration argues this enforces existing statutes that were never repealed. Another order on D.C. crime measures directs agencies to immediately create and equip new law enforcement units without identifying specific funding from Congress.

There are reasonable alternative explanations. Most likely, these orders represent aggressive policy signaling rather than actual fund withholding—each contains legal savings clauses saying actions must be "consistent with applicable law," which could prevent agencies from actually cutting funds. Additionally, presidents have historically used federal funding as leverage (such as tying highway funds to the drinking age), though those cases involved explicit congressional authorization. The D.C. orders also operate in a unique legal space under the District of Columbia Self-Government Act, where the federal government has greater authority than it does over states.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis based on a small sample of 15 published documents, which limits statistical reliability. Whether agencies will actually withhold funds, and whether courts would permit it, remains to be seen.