Why this Nixon-inspired law says Trump can't freeze federal funding

• Republicans largely back the Trump administration move. But in the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) has publicly expressed reservations about the freeze.
• The situation has echoes of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which restricts a president from cutting funding without the approval of Congress.
• The law that passed after then-President Nixon canceled billions in spending could serve as a roadmap for what's to come with the Trump administration's order.

What is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974?

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the president to submit a request to Congress to withhold funds.

• Congress then has 45 days to decide whether to approve the president's request. It can also choose how much of the funding to rescind.
• If Congress doesn't act within that time period, the funds must be spent.

Zoom out: The law also created the House and Senate budget committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was it enacted?

The law was signed after then-President Nixon canceled billions in spending, impounding $7.7 billion during the 1973 fiscal year and about $12.8 billion two years earlier.

• Some Congress members believed Nixon abused the power of impoundment by withholding funds from programs he opposed.
• Nixon said in 1973 that he would "not spend money if the Congress overspends, and I will not be for programs that will raise the taxes and put a bigger burden on the already overburdened American taxpayer."
• He declared at the time an "absolutely clear" constitutional right to impound funds as he deemed appropriate.
• His administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs, according to the House Budget Committee, including highway and water control funds.

Trump's argument

Trump and his allies have argued the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and that he has the power to rescind funding authorized by Congress.

• "Conservative advocates have argued that until the presidency of Nixon, who took office in 1969, it was understood that the Constitution gave Congress the power to set a ceiling on spending, but the president had the authority to spend less," per Reuters.
• Trump said in a 2023 campaign video that he wants to use impoundment "to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings." He also argued the law allows Congress to seize power from the executive branch.
• Cutting government spending was a big campaign platform for Trump and he created a whole new department tasked with cutting waste and streamlining bureaucracy.

What they're saying: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing Tuesday that the freeze is to ensure "every penny that is going out the door is not conflicting with the executive orders and actions that this president has taken."

• She argued the pause was "certainly within the confines of the law" and characterized it as part of a government spending review.

Flashback: The Government Accountability Office, which monitors compliance of the Impoundment Control Act, found that Trump violated the law during his first term by withholding security aid for Ukraine.

Experts weigh in on legality

Georgetown law professor David Super told Axios Tuesday the Supreme Court unanimously held in the 1975 Train v. New York decision that the president is required to follow statutes directing that appropriated funds be spent.

• Although the Impoundment Control Act provides some limited exceptions, "it explicitly prohibits the President from pausing or deferring spending because he disagrees with the policies underlying the spending," Super said via email.
• The exceptions include allowing the president to defer funds if needed to allow for greater needs later in the year, if efficiencies have allowed savings, or if some provision of law specifically allows such a deferral.

Yes, but: In each case, it can be done only by sending a special message to Congress under a section of the act that specifically says that policy disagreements are not permissible reasons.

• "The President has not claimed to have any of the three permissible reasons and has not sent the required message to Congress," Super said regarding Trump's memo.
• "He is free to ask Congress to rescind any funding he believes is misguided, but he may not ignore the law," he added.

Constitutional showdown looms in the courts

Democratic attorney generals and Congress members announced they're suing the Trump administration over the freeze.

What they're saying: "Not only does this administration's new policy put people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional," New York Attorney General Letitia James said at a briefing announcing the lawsuit.

• "The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom. When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim."

Go deeper: Trump's funding freeze temporarily halted by federal judge