Democrats and Republicans Clash over Trump Spending Order, Suspending Constitutional Grounds
On Tuesday, six Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of nonprofits filed a lawsuit to block the directive. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, declared, “We have a constitutional crisis. The president doesn’t get to decide.”
Democrats have feared that the order would interfere with essential services such as Meals on Wheels, healthcare, and medical research. Sen. Patty Murray, chair of the Appropriations Committee, described the directive as “chaotic and confusing.”
The federal judge issued a temporary injunction until February 3 when arguments are set for hearing.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the “power of the purse,” while Article II assigns the president to execute laws passed by Congress. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 would require presidents to come to congress for an order or authority over withholding appropriated funds in question.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” saying it marks one of the most egregious attempts to undermine congressional authority in history. Legal scholars, including Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck, argue that the order is illegal because it unilaterally stops spending that has already been approved by Congress.
The White House insists the order is legal. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “This is within the president’s power to ensure spending aligns with executive policies.” A memo from the Office of Management and Budget defended the move, citing past presidential precedents for “temporary pauses” in funding.
Most Republicans back the measure as an important check on government spending. Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., said, “If we appropriate taxpayer dollars, they ought to be spent prudently.” Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said it is a prudent step to prevent last-minute misallocations by the previous administration.
However, some Republicans have opposed this, too. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) mentioned concern from constituents and asked if it was even legal. “The money was appropriated, so I don’t see how they could just stop it,” he said.
With a federal judge temporarily halting the directive, the fate of the order will be decided at the February 3 hearing. Both parties are sharply divided, with Democrats accusing Trump of executive overreach and Republicans defending the pause as a responsible fiscal measure. The outcome could have significant implications for presidential authority and congressional power.
