Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Dec 15, 2025

This week, two presidential executive orders raised questions about whether the White House is redirecting money and resources that Congress approved for specific purposes.

The first, Designating Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, reclassifies fentanyl as a WMD and directs military leaders and the Attorney General to consider sending military resources to the Justice Department for domestic drug enforcement. This might matter because Congress decides how military funds are spent — that's a core constitutional protection called the "power of the purse" — and shifting military resources to domestic law enforcement without new congressional authorization could erode that check on executive power.

The most likely benign explanation is that the order doesn't actually move money or troops — it asks officials to "determine whether" such support is warranted, and military assistance for counter-drug operations has some existing legal basis. The administration has framed fentanyl as an urgent national security and public health crisis, which may justify coordinating resources through existing legal channels. The WMD label is dramatic, but it may function more as a policy signal than an immediate spending change. Still, the order creates a framework that could potentially facilitate future resource shifts with less congressional oversight.

The second order, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, directs agencies to block states from receiving broadband infrastructure funds Congress already approved if those states have AI regulations the administration opposes. The administration says this is necessary to promote AI innovation and protect American economic competitiveness. However, Congress created those broadband funds to expand internet access, not to influence state technology policy. Attaching new conditions the legislature never included effectively lets the executive branch decide who gets money Congress already allocated — a form of spending control that the Constitution reserves for Congress.

An alternative explanation is that the executive branch often has discretion in how it administers grants, and some policy conditions on federal funding have been upheld by courts. The practical impact may also be narrow if few states are affected.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis of published government documents. No funds have actually been withheld or redirected yet — these concerns are about what these orders make possible, not what has already happened.