Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Jun 22, 2026

This week, members of Congress raised alarms about the executive branch redirecting or cutting funds that Congress had already approved for specific purposes—a practice that, if confirmed, would challenge one of Congress's most fundamental powers: control over how federal money is spent.

The most significant action involved the transfer of Title IX civil rights enforcement from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, which a Senate resolution called "illegal" and contrary to appropriations law. Separately, a House floor speech described the termination of nearly 400 Department of Justice grants worth $820 million and cuts of $500 million to community violence prevention programs that Congress authorized in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. This might matter because when the executive branch redirects or eliminates spending that Congress specifically approved, it could undermine the power of the purse—the constitutional principle that elected representatives, not the President, decide how taxpayer money is used.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. Most plausibly, the Administration may argue that transferring enforcement between agencies is a legitimate organizational decision, not a refusal to spend money. Similarly, grant terminations may reflect permissible administrative judgments about program performance rather than unlawful spending cuts. These actions could also be part of routine administrative adjustments or broader policy shifts that the executive branch considers within its legal authority. It is also worth noting that all of this week's flagged concerns came from Democratic legislators, and floor speeches are inherently political documents that may frame executive actions in the most critical light possible.

Limitations: This analysis draws on congressional statements, not independent investigations. The executive branch's rationale for these actions was not represented in this week's documents, the legal characterizations offered by legislators have not been adjudicated by courts, and the factual claims require independent verification.