- A group of Republicans recently introduced a bill to repeal the Impoundment Control Act.
- It would hand Trump more control over government spending — he could even unilaterally cut it off.
- Several Republicans who backed the bill told BI they’re fine with giving up congressional power.
Ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are ready to do something unusual: Relinquish some of their own power over federal spending.
More than 20 Republicans cosponsored a bill this month that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, or ICA, a Watergate-era law that requires the president to spend all of the money that Congress approves. In the absence of that law and subsequent court rulings, the president would have the power to spend less money than what Congress decides — or refuse to spend money on certain programs altogether.
That would bring a massive power shift from the legislative to the executive branch, upending a balance between the two that’s existed for 50 years. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say it’s their best hope of enacting spending cuts and reducing the national debt, given Congress’s history of inaction and what they view as their colleagues’ unwillingness to reduce spending.
“I think the spending is just out of control, and I think Congress is gutless,” Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Business Insider. “I just don’t think we’re capable of making changes without some other interference, whether it be the executive branch or the voters.”
“If the power is reducing expenditures, then I’m all for it,” Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri told BI. “Something has to be done.”
“You look at where we are in this country, why not give him that power?” Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told BI, referring to the country’s fiscal situation. “At this point, I’m willing to take that risk. Anything can be abused. I can drink too much water, and suffer from it.”
The Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a request for comment.
‘We can simply choke off the money’
Trump is no stranger to impoundment — his first impeachment was triggered by his refusal to deliver aid to Ukraine. As he’s mounted his third presidential bid, Trump has argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and should be done away with, either via congressional repeal or via the courts.
“With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “I alone can get that done.”
As Trump has staffed up his administration, he’s appointed staunch proponents of impoundment to key positions. That includes Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta, who have been nominated to their previously held roles of director and general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, respectively.
The president-elect’s allies have argued that impoundment is a constitutional power that all presidents hold, owing to the president’s duty under Article II of the US Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call
They also point out that for roughly 200 years before 1974 — when Congress passed the ICA as President Richard Nixon refused to spend money on programs he disagreed with — presidents of all stripes have used impoundment for a variety of reasons, including policy disagreements.
“When Congress passes a spending bill, we pass a ceiling,” Rep. Andrew Clyde, the Georgia Republican who introduced the ICA repeal bill, told BI. “It’s not a floor and ceiling put together at one number.”
More recently, impoundment has been embraced by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, whose “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative aims to enact trillions of dollars in cuts to federal spending. The duo have publicly agreed with Trump’s argument that the ICA is unconstitutional, and the topic arose when they visited Capitol Hill to speak with Republicans earlier this month.
“I look at it as a tool of saving money, and being more efficient,” Clyde said. “That’s what the American people literally demanded in this election.”
‘Maybe this is too broad’
There are plenty of opponents of impoundment on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the incoming GOP chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has told reporters that she’s opposed to repealing the ICA. And it’s not just Trump skeptics who are uneasy with it.
“If it’s something that further weakens Congress’ ability to do its job the way they should be, then I’m going to look at that real carefully,” Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada told BI in November.
Key Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed opposition to Trump’s impoundment plans. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a fact sheet making a case against impoundment.
“The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous,” Boyle said in a statement. “Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk.”
Republican skepticism, along with Democrats’ likely opposition to any effort to give Trump more spending power, could make repealing the law via Congress an uphill battle.
The president-elect said in the 2023 video that he “will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court,” queueing up what would be a high-stakes legal fight early in his second term.
What remains unclear is exactly how expansively Trump would try to use impoundment. For some of the Republicans who support the effort, it’s merely about spending less than what’s necessary. Others warn that Trump could use that power in a retributive way, denying federal funding to states and localities over policy disagreements.
Even those who’ve cosponsored the ICA repeal bill expressed some ambivalence about its potential implications.
“Maybe this is too broad. I don’t know,” Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona told BI. “But I can tell you this: if you have a president who says ‘I don’t need 10 billion, I need 2 billion,’ then I would like them not to spend that 8 billion. That’s really kind of what the objective is, I think.”
