President Donald Trump’s recent directive to halt the distribution of federal grants and loans has triggered strong opposition from congressional Democrats and government watchdog groups.
Critics argue that this move is an unconstitutional power grab, violating Congress’s authority over federal spending. Meanwhile, the White House and congressional Republicans defend the decision as a necessary step to reassess spending priorities.
With a federal judge temporarily blocking the order and a court hearing scheduled for February 3, the battle over executive power and congressional authority is heating up.
Legal Battle Begins Over Federal Spending Freeze
The legal fight began swiftly, with six Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of nonprofits filing lawsuits against the order. Opponents argue that the directive undermines Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse,” which gives lawmakers exclusive authority to allocate and control federal spending.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) called it a “constitutional crisis,” emphasizing that the president cannot unilaterally decide how Congress-approved funds should be spent. Similarly, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) warned that the freeze is already creating uncertainty for millions who depend on federal assistance programs.
Concerns Over Impact on Essential Services
Democrats warn that the spending pause could disrupt crucial services funded by federal programs, including:
- Meals on Wheels: A program that delivers food to seniors and individuals with disabilities.
- Healthcare Services: Hospitals relying on federal grants for operations and patient care.
- Medical Research: Cancer studies and other critical research projects funded by federal appropriations.
Murray criticized the order for causing “chaos and confusion,” leaving many unsure whether they will continue receiving the aid they depend on.
White House Defends the Decision
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against claims that the order was unconstitutional. She argued that the pause falls within the president’s authority and is intended to ensure that funds are not being used in conflict with Trump’s executive orders.
“This is certainly within the confines of the law,” Leavitt stated, adding that past presidents have also implemented temporary spending pauses to align government spending with their administration’s policies.
Congressional Republicans echoed this sentiment, with Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Michigan) defending the move as a way to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently. “If we allocate taxpayer dollars, we need to make sure they are going where we promised the American people they would go,” she said.
Historical Precedents and Constitutional Questions
Despite Republican support, legal experts and some lawmakers argue that Trump’s action directly violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to seek congressional approval before withholding funds already appropriated by Congress.
Additionally, a 1996 Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the president cannot cancel portions of a law, reinforcing Congress’s exclusive spending power.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) described the order as one of the “most serious attempts at the usurpation of congressional power in American history,” emphasizing that the Constitution clearly assigns spending authority to Congress.
Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck called the directive a “flagrant violation” of federal law, arguing that presidents cannot simply override congressional spending decisions.
Republican Response: A Temporary and Necessary Measure?
Most Republican lawmakers support the spending freeze, viewing it as a responsible financial decision to curb wasteful spending.
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky) argued that the move allows the administration to verify that outgoing funds are being used appropriately. “When you know they’re writing checks up until the last minute, I think it’s fair to ask whether the money is going where it should be,” he said.
However, not all Republicans are on board. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) voiced concerns about the impact on his constituents.
There are real people with real jobs who depend on these grants,” he said, questioning the legality of stopping Congress-approved funds.
Later, Bacon appeared to soften his stance after learning that the scope of the order was not as broad as initially believed. Still, his initial concerns highlight growing unease even among some within the Republican Party.
What Happens Next?
A federal judge has already paused the order until at least February 3, when a court hearing will take place to determine whether the directive can move forward.
If the court rules against the administration, Trump may be forced to resume distributing the funds. If the court sides with the White House, the spending freeze could remain in place, setting a precedent for future presidents to exert greater control over congressional spending.
Trump’s decision to halt federal spending has sparked a fierce constitutional battle over the limits of executive power.
While the White House and Republicans argue that the pause is temporary and necessary, Democrats and legal experts view it as an unprecedented violation of Congress’s authority.
With a court ruling expected soon, the outcome of this dispute could have lasting implications for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.