The “freeze” on federal spending ordered by President Trump early in his administration, and various statements made by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and incoming General Counsel Mark Paoletta supporting the practice of presidential impoundment suggest that the question of who has the power to control federal spending will be a major issue during the Trump administration. As this is not the first time that there have been controversies over the use of impoundments (that is, the refusal to spend money that has been provided for by law) it is useful to review the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), a law which was enacted 50 years ago in an attempt to establish a process through which Presidents could propose the cancellation or deferral of appropriated spending, and the Congress could respond to those requests.
Attempts by Presidents to impound funds are nothing new. Some of the first impoundments occurred as early as the Jefferson administration, but normally there were informal agreements between the Congress and a given President concerning the failure to spend appropriated funds. Most of these early impoundments resulted not from policy disagreements, but from efforts by the executive to meet the associated policy goals more efficiently. They also normally were in compliance with laws that permitted the executive branch the discretion to make these choices.