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

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Parallel Twin Lives of Democracy

It is a striking paradox of contemporary American life: The country appears to be bitterly divided, yet at the same time it is in deep internal agreement.

Survey after survey show broad consensus on issues that once split the nation: Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, public smoking bans, marijuana legalization, background checks for gun ownership, even paid parental leave. Many of these were once thought irreconcilable, but today they register supermajority support. Yet at the same time, partisanship has become the most toxic line of fracture in American identity. As political philosopher Robert Talisse has observed, parents who would welcome a child marrying across lines of faith or ethnicity recoil at the prospect of marriage across ideological lines. The left and right increasingly define one another not as fellow citizens who happen to disagree, but as existential threats.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani holds a campaign event with the healthcare worker's union on September 24, 2025 outside of St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx borough of New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

Why have so many rank-and-file Democrats found Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York mayor so captivating – despite all the naysaying from the party’s establishment? Because his message may be the first from a Democrat to counter decades of Republican dominance over a narrative central to our nation: the American Dream.

What the American Dream tells us is that anything is possible in America, that if you work hard, nothing can stop you, and you will succeed. It’s a rags-to-riches story, reminiscent of Horatio Alger and Rocky Balboa, and the classic tale of immigrants arriving with nothing and sacrificing everything to create a better life for themselves and their families.

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

USA Brazil tariffs

AI generated

The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

President Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose a new round of tariffs and sanctions against Brazil after Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced the former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup — an act of political retaliation that should raise alarm bells across the globe.

President Trump’s threat follows the earlier imposition of a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and Magnitsky sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s trial. These measures are designed to punish Brazil’s judiciary for daring to prosecute Bolsonaro, who plotted to overturn the 2022 elections and assassinate then-president-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Keep ReadingShow less