Does Trump have to spend all the money appropriated by Congress?

OPINION:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

That’s it. That is pretty much the entire description of presidential authority that the framers of the Constitution offered in Article II. A couple of sections down have a little more specificity about being the commander in chief and treaties and recess appointments. But, for the most part, the first sentence captures it all and, to an impartial observer, seems to give the president a lot of leeway.

In comparison, Article I spends most of its time describing a long list of what Congress can do, which suggests that the framers intended to circumscribe the legislative branch to a greater degree. The relevant part of Article I (for our purposes) states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That seems clear enough. No one can spend money that Congress has not appropriated.

The Constitution is silent, though, on whether the president has to spend all the money appropriated or, in other words, whether appropriations create a ceiling on spending or a floor. The Article II language sounds like a ceiling, not a floor, and nothing in the Constitution suggests otherwise.

I mention this because we seem to be getting ready to choose sides over whether the president can opt not to spend all the cash that Congress may have appropriated for a particular function or office. Some argue that the Impoundment Control Act, signed into law in the last tumultuous days of President Nixon’s time in office, makes it clear that the president has to go to Congress if he wants to withhold appropriated funds.

To be sure, that is the intention of the act. Whether it is consistent with Article II of the Constitution is another question altogether.

The actual amounts withheld by the current administration are loose change in the vast spending machine of the federal government. About two-thirds of federal spending is transfer payments (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, still not a trust fund) and interest on the debt. Less than 30%, or about $2 trillion currently, is discretionary. Half of that is defense, which no one is prepared to address. That leaves about $1 trillion in truly discretionary funding.

As entertaining as Elon Musk and his boy band have been, their efforts will make no real dent in our spending unless they significantly increase their ambition. President Trump knows this, and he knows that the current contest over the freezing of funds, which the Supreme Court will almost certainly resolve, is really about precluding those on the left — the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health grantees, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, etc. — from being funded by taxpayers. That is a laudable goal.

When listening to the folks on the left complain about the freezing of funds and the expansion of the imperial presidency and all that nonsense, it may be useful to reflect that last week, the United States, at the order of the president, attacked people in Somalia, presumably the Islamic State. No soul anywhere in Congress complained about violating the Constitution or even the War Powers Act. Similarly, President Biden presided over the largest land invasion in the history of the world. No one on the left said a word.

In short, we let — or the Constitution allows, whichever you prefer — presidents do all kinds of things that are, at best, marginally licit. Drawing the line at holding back a few billion dollars from fellow travelers seems ridiculous and petulant.

• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.