Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. and Puerto Rico flags
Puerto Rico: America's oldest democratic crisis
TexPhoto/Getty Image

Puerto Rico’s New Transparency Law Attacks a Right Forged in Struggle

At a time when public debate in the United States is consumed by questions of secrecy, accountability and the selective release of government records, Puerto Rico has quietly taken a dangerous step in the opposite direction.

In December 2025, Gov. Jenniffer González signed Senate Bill 63 into law, introducing sweeping amendments to Puerto Rico’s transparency statute, known as the Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Access to Public Information Act. Framed as administrative reform, the new law (Act 156 of 2025) instead restricts access to public information and weakens one of the archipelago’s most important accountability and democratic tools.

Keep ReadingShow less
The SHAPE Act and the Fight to Protect State Department Workers

A woman shows palm demonstrating protest

Getty Images

The SHAPE Act and the Fight to Protect State Department Workers

When the #MeToo movement erupted in 2017, it exposed sexual harassment across industries that had long been protected by their power. While early attention focused on the entertainment sector and corporate workplaces, the reckoning quickly spread to the federal government.

Within weeks, more than 200 women working in national security signed an open letter under the hashtag #MeTooNatSec, stating they had experienced sexual harassment or assault or knew colleagues who had. Many of those accounts pointed directly to the U.S. State Department.

Keep ReadingShow less