Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President

Opinion

The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President
white concrete dome museum

Money is power. In our system of government, that power was intended to rest squarely with Congress. Yet in recent years, we’ve seen presidents of both parties find ways to sidestep Congress’s “power of the purse” authority, steadily chipping away at their Article I powers and turning appropriations into suggestions rather than binding law.

As someone who served in the House of Representatives — and in its leadership — I saw firsthand how seriously members of both parties took this duty. Regardless of ideology, we understood that Congress’s control of the purse is not just a budgetary function but a core constitutional responsibility.


The Constitution entrusts spending decisions to Congress because they are about more than dollars and budgets – they reflect the priorities and the will of the people who elected their representatives to make those choices on their behalf. But what was designed to be one of the legislature’s strongest checks on executive power has been weakened by clever workarounds, bureaucratic delays, and outright defiance of congressional intent. The result is an executive branch that increasingly decides, on its own terms, whether duly appropriated funds will ever reach the people and programs they were meant to serve.

Congress attempted to address this issue in 1974 with the Impoundment Control Act, which was passed following President Nixon's unilateral withholding of billions of dollars that lawmakers had already approved. The law was intended to prevent presidents from simply refusing to spend appropriated funds. But modern administrations have found ways around it. “Programmatic deferrals,” apportionment holds through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and timing maneuvers near the end of the fiscal year have allowed funds to expire before they can be used. These tactics effectively nullify Congress’s spending power.

This erosion undermines democratic accountability. When presidents can eliminate programs by deciding to starve them of funds, voters and Congress are excluded from the process. It threatens the system of checks and balances at the heart of our republic. If the executive can unilaterally control both the execution and timing of appropriations, Congress is reduced to little more than a bystander in one of its most vital constitutional roles.

A majority of Americans don’t want to see presidents unilaterally withholding or blocking funds that Congress has enacted into law. A recent poll conducted by Issue One and YouGov found that 61 percent of voters oppose this kind of executive overreach, and 68 percent believe that congressional spending power is a constitutional feature that strengthens our government.

Congress should listen to the people and restore balance.

Strengthening the Impoundment Control Act is one place to start. Reforms, like the ones laid out in Issue One’s We the People Playbook, should ensure that appropriated funds are released in time to be used as intended, close loopholes that allow for stealth impoundments, and improve transparency when spending is delayed.

Lawmakers should also bolster enforcement mechanisms, such as expediting the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) ability to sue agencies over suspected violations of appropriations law, and prevent the abuse of presidential rescission authority by shortening the time window for rescission proposals, so that presidents cannot run out the clock on appropriated funds without congressional action.

These reforms shouldn’t be partisan. James Madison warned that “the power over the purse may… be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon” members of Congress have against encroachments by the executive. If Congress fails to defend that weapon, it risks surrendering one of the most important tools protecting our republic from creeping executive control.

Our Founders never intended for one person to decide how our nation’s money is spent. That responsibility belongs to the many. It’s time for Congress to reclaim its rightful authority over the purse – not only to restore accountability, but to preserve the balance of power enshrined in our Constitution.

Dick Gephardt was Democratic House Majority Leader from 1989-1995. He serves on Issue One’s board and is a member of their ReFormers Caucus, the largest bipartisan coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for sweeping reforms to fix our broken political system.

Read More

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less