Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Jan 26, 2026

This week, two government actions raised questions about whether the executive branch is reshaping how congressionally approved money gets spent — not by refusing to spend it, but by attaching new conditions Congress never authorized.

This might matter because Congress's control over federal spending — often called "the power of the purse" — is one of the most important checks on presidential power. If the executive branch can effectively rewrite the terms under which approved funds are used, it could weaken Congress's ability to determine national priorities through the budget process.

The first action was an executive order titled Addressing State and Local Failures To Rebuild Los Angeles After Wildfire Disasters. It directs federal agencies to override state and local building permit requirements for homes rebuilt with federal disaster money. Instead of going through normal permitting, builders would self-certify their work. The order frames this as necessary because California and Los Angeles have failed to allow rebuilding quickly enough. But the practical effect is that the President is using congressionally approved disaster relief funds to bypass state laws that Congress itself did not preempt.

Alternative explanations: The most likely benign reading is that this is a legitimate use of emergency powers to speed up disaster recovery — federal preemption during emergencies has some legal precedent. It's also worth noting that the funds are being spent, not withheld, which distinguishes this from traditional impoundment. However, the order's explicit language about overriding state permitting regimes goes beyond mere streamlining.

The second action was a Senate floor speech by Senator Chris Van Hollen on H.R. 7148, in which he argued that a major appropriations package fails to adequately prevent the executive branch from redirecting funds. He pointed to an $850 million fund he described as lacking accountability, $9 billion in cuts to foreign assistance, and ongoing efforts to dismantle federal agencies. Floor speeches are partisan by nature, and this likely reflects standard opposition-party criticism of a spending bill. Still, the specific concerns he raised — about rejected congressional spending directives and insufficient oversight mechanisms — point to a real legislative debate about how much discretion the executive branch should have over approved funds.

Limitations: Only 15 documents were reviewed this week, and only 2 raised concerns. This is AI-generated analysis based on publicly available documents, not a legal finding.