IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah


IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
In “The Real Shutdown,” I argued that Congress’s reliance on stopgap spending bills has weakened its power of the purse, giving Trump greater say over how federal funds are used. The latest move in that long retreat is H.R. 1180, a bill introduced in February 2025 by Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA). The one-sentence bill would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in its entirety—no amendments, no replacement, no oversight mechanism. If continuing resolutions handed the White House a blank check, repealing the ICA would make it permanent, stripping Congress of its last protection against executive overreach in federal spending and accelerating the quiet transfer of budgetary power to the presidency.
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was a congressional response to an earlier constitutional crisis. After Richard Nixon refused to spend funds Congress had appropriated, lawmakers across party lines reasserted their authority. The ICA required the president to notify Congress of any intent to withhold or cancel funds and barred them from doing so without legislative approval. It was designed to prevent precisely the kind of unilateral power that Nixon had claimed and that Trump now seeks to reclaim.
Half a century later, as partisan gridlock stiffens and executive action becomes the default mode of governance, it is no surprise the issue has resurfaced.
That guardrail is in danger of being dismantled. Getting rid of the ICA would let presidents delay, redirect, or cancel spending however they see fit, effectively handing Congress’s constitutional power of the purse over to the president. For a Congress already paralyzed by partisanship and dysfunction, this is not just another budget fight—it is a pivot point in the balance of power.
If the continuing resolutions described in “The Real Shutdown” blurred the line between congressional intent and executive execution, this bill would erase it entirely. What began as a tactic to avoid shutdowns has evolved into a structural surrender—a quiet coup over the nation’s budget process.
The Act has long served as a brake on presidential overreach, ensuring that once Congress appropriates funds, presidents cannot withhold or redirect them for political gain. Without it, presidents could govern by impoundment—deciding which programs live and which die, regardless of congressional intent.
First, presidents would gain sweeping control over spending. Agencies could be directed to withhold funds from disfavored programs—such as environmental enforcement or public broadcasting—while fast-tracking money toward politically favored initiatives like border security or defense contracts. Appropriations would become instruments of presidential preference rather than expressions of legislative will.
Second, it would cripple congressional oversight. Once the executive controls both the timing and flow of funds, oversight loses its teeth. Committees could demand accountability but lack the leverage to enforce it. Congress would be left performing oversight rather than exercising it.
Third, future presidents would inherit this unchecked authority. What today’s majority grants to Trump, tomorrow’s president—of either party—will inherit. Once Congress relinquishes a power, it rarely gets it back.
The above consequences amount to a fundamental imbalance in the separation of powers. Together, these shifts would leave Congress with little real leverage over how its own appropriations are used, completing the transfer of fiscal control to the executive.
The upshot? The presidency would become even more dominant. Modern presidents already use executive orders and emergency declarations to shape policy. Repealing the ICA would add budget control to that arsenal—combining the power to command with the power to fund—the very outcome the Framers feared most.
Building on this erosion of legislative power, the push to repeal the ICA is not an isolated maneuver. It fits squarely within Project 2025's playbook, the Heritage Foundation’s sweeping blueprint to “dismantle the administrative state” and concentrate authority in the executive branch. The project’s architects argue that federal agencies have become unaccountable bureaucracies obstructing conservative governance. Their solution is not reform but control—installing political loyalists, curbing agency independence, and removing statutory barriers to presidential discretion.
Repealing the ICA would give the president the financial tools to make that vision real. It would allow funding decisions to be driven by ideology—rewarding allies, punishing opponents, and bypassing Congress entirely. Trump’s allies have already signaled this intent through efforts to reclassify federal workers, defund diversity programs, and sideline environmental initiatives. Without the ICA, such actions could occur by executive order rather than legislation.
For decades, both parties have denounced “runaway spending” while relying on temporary fixes that mask deeper institutional weakness. Now the cumulative effect of those decisions has come due. A Congress that once jealously guarded its prerogatives has grown accustomed to ceding them, one continuing resolution at a time. Repealing the ICA merely formalizes this drift—transforming what began as budgetary neglect into deliberate centralization.
The battle over H.R. 1180 is about far more than fiscal management. It is a test of whether Congress still possesses the will to act as a coequal branch of government. The Founders designed separation of powers to slow rash decisions and force negotiation. Today, that friction is treated as dysfunction—and executive overreach as efficiency.
If the ICA is repealed, future presidents will inherit not just broader spending discretion but a Congress too weakened to reclaim it. The power of the purse—the very lever that defines legislative sovereignty—will have been traded for short-term political convenience. It is a quiet coup precisely because it arrives without fanfare, cloaked in the language of reform. Yet its consequences would echo for generations: a presidency cut loose from appropriation limits, an enfeebled legislature, and a democracy in which policy is dictated, not debated.
The danger lies not only in what this president might do with such authority but in what every president after him will be able to do because of it. To resist that future, Congress must reclaim its budgetary authority—by restoring regular order, enforcing oversight, and refusing to govern by continuing resolution. Citizens, too, can play a role by demanding accountability and recognizing that democracy’s strength depends on the vitality of its institutions.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” President Donald Trump said in late October 2025 of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea north of Venezuela.
The Trump administration asserted without providing any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. Fourteen boats that the administration alleged were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck, killing 43 people.
On Oct. 24, the administration began a substantial military buildup in the region. The Pentagon moved the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and some of its strike group, along with several other naval ships, to the Caribbean and moved F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico. This is the largest U.S. naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
According to the White House, the naval buildup and strikes on boats in international waters are part of counternarcotics operations. The vessels targeted allegedly belonged to Venezuelan drug smugglers, though the administration has produced no evidence that there were drugs on the boats, or what type. Trump has named fentanyl as one of them.
At times the president and some of his advisers have referred to the operators and occupants of the boats as “narco-terrorists.” But they have offered no explanation why the people would be considered terrorists.
The president and his advisers’ own words have also indicated that the larger intentions of the administration could be to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.
But as a former political-military analyst and former senior adviser at the Department of Defense, I find it hard to discern a coherent strategy or objective.
The U.S. deployed its largest warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the Caribbean, north of Venezuela, following multiple strikes on vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. Omar Zaghloul/Anadolu via Getty ImagesThe boats that have been hit all had origins in, or connections to, Venezuela, and all were struck in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific north of Colombia, making the operation particularly puzzling. Venezuela is not a major producer of fentanyl or cocaine. The major cocaine trafficking routes are in the Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.
Typically, the U.S. Coast Guard stops vessels suspected of carrying illegal drugs in international waters. In 2025, the Coast Guard has interdicted a record amount of illegal drugs and precursor chemicals in the Caribbean. It is notable that the amount of methamphetamine precursor chemicals interdicted far exceeds that of fentanyl.
After interdiction, the Coast Guard typically begins a process that adheres to legal strictures, detaining the crew and eventually turning them over to a U.S. law enforcement agency.
But the Trump strikes have summarily killed most of the people on the boats and presumably destroyed any of the alleged illicit drugs. Many observers and legal experts have said the killings amount to murder.
Trump has had a fixation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua for some time, adding to his administration’s focus on Venezuela.
The administration designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization in January, along with several other drug cartels. But the White House statement announcing the designation made no mention of any behavior or activity that would constitute terrorism.
Under U.S. law, terrorism is defined as politically motivated violence, usually targeting a civilian population, intended to bring about political change. The terrorist designation allows the government to pursue actions such as seizing assets and imposing travel restrictions on those appearing on the list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
But the designation of a criminal gang with no clear political ideology or objectives mischaracterizes the group. That calls into question some of the White House’s motivations.
Then there’s the odd incident of the covert operation that wasn’t covert.
In early October, The New York Times reported that Trump had authorized covert operations in Venezuela and authorized the CIA to conduct “lethal strikes” inside the country.
Surprisingly, Trump confirmed that he had indeed authorized covert action. Yet the defining feature of a covert operation is that the role of the government is hidden.
Trump’s fixation on Venezuela goes back to his first term, when he also had Maduro’s regime in his sights. The administration eventually charged Maduro with leading the Cartel de los Soles – Cartel of the Suns – an informal criminal network tied to high-level Venezuelan military officials believed to have conducted drug trafficking into the U.S. The White House has also claimed that Maduro controls Tren de Aragua.
Independent observers assert that opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia handily won the 2024 presidential election. The government-controlled National Electoral Council, however, declared Maduro the winner. If the White House has greater intentions in Venezuela, such as regime change, which some anonymous officials have suggested, Trump has tipped off Maduro to be vigilant.
If the goal of the administration is interdiction of dangerous illicit drugs like cocaine, Colombia is a much bigger source. Venezuela acts mainly as a minor trans-shipment conduit rather than a producer.
In terms of mitigating the effects of drugs and narcotics in the United States, multiple studies over decades have found that measures taken to decrease demand in the U.S. rather than supply-side interdiction are more effective in reducing harm.
With little public information to suggest an overall strategy or objective, legal problems related to the maritime strikes become apparent.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the activities were a “counter drug operation.” But he went further in saying that instead of interdicting the boats, they would be blown up.
The method of interdiction and destruction of the boats and lives of those involved by a military strike presents problems, especially in terms of U.S. armed forces performing law enforcement duties. This would be proscribed by the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal armed forces from performing law enforcement activities.
As for actions targeting Venezuela, Trump has said he would not ask Congress for a declaration of war but would notify it of any ground operation.
The 1973 War Powers Act, which requires the president to notify Congress before hostilities and brief it afterward, would apply to this situation. But almost every president since its passing has ignored it at some point.
Though some Republicans in Congress have objected to the military actions so far, the Senate in early October voted down a resolution that would have prevented further strikes in the Caribbean.
The Trump administration continues to depict its activities in international waters as a military operation and the smugglers as enemy combatants. Most legal experts dismiss this and characterize the strikes as extrajudicial killings.
In reply to a flippant and profane response from Vice President JD Vance about the killings, Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on social media, “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”
If Trump and his advisers like Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are taken at their word in scattered statements on the activities around Venezuela, many questions remain, such as why the boats are being destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted.
Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization was first published on The Conversation and was republished with permission.
Jeffrey Fields is Professor of the Practice of International Relations at USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences.

America faces its longest government shutdown as millions lose food, pay, and healthcare—while communities step up to help where Washington fails.
Congratulations to World Series champions the Los Angeles Dodgers! Americans love to watch their favorite sports teams win championships and set records. Well now Team USA is about to set a new record – for the longest government shutdown in history. As the shutdown enters its second month and the funds for government operations and programs run out, more and more Americans are starting to feel the pain.
Over the weekend, 42 million Americans – nearly one-eighth of the country – who use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to feed themselves and their families, lost their food stamps for the first time in the program’s history. This is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program.
Two federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to tap an emergency reserve with billions of dollars for food assistance, and the White House finally agreed to restore a partial benefit. But much hurt has already been done. Partial benefits will not provide sufficient nutrition for these families. Even if Congress soon ends the current stalemate and funds the government, it would take many weeks or longer to fully restore back benefits. Happy Thanksgiving, to these poor fellow Americans.
But food assistance is not the only policy area that is being impacted by the government shutdown. Here is a rundown of other areas, which affects conservatives, liberals and independents alike:
Military pay: more than a million members of the US military missed their pay checks last week. About a quarter of military families are “food insecure” and 15% rely on food assistance. The Military Family Advisory Network estimates that 27% of families have $500 or less in emergency savings. Showing sympathy, the Trump administration has accepted a $130 million gift from a wealthy donor, Timothy Mellon of the old money Mellon dynasty, to help pay salaries during the shutdown, certainly a generous donation (though likely illegal since it was not appropriated or approved by Congress). But that only works out to $100 for each of the 1.3 million active-duty service members expecting to be paid. Notably, President Trump was not willing to solicit private donations to pay for food stamps.
Heating assistance: around six million American families use a federal assistance initiative, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to help pay their utility bills. Many states bar natural gas and electric companies from cutting off service to people who do not pay their bills, but those rules do not apply to propane or heating oil, which many households use. As the weather grows colder, many households face tough decisions over how to stay warm unless the government reopens.
Nuclear safety: The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, said it is furloughing approximately 1400 employees. The agency is responsible for overseeing thousands of nuclear warheads. It also serves as the first responder for nuclear or radiological emergencies. Only about 400 employees remain on the job, so whatever you do, don’t spring a leak in your local nuclear power plant.
Education: 87% of Department of Education employees have been furloughed. Only a skeleton crew is left. The Trump administration is also trying to use a new round of layoffs to gut multiple offices inside the department, including offices overseeing special education and civil rights.
Air traffic controllers: With nearly half of the 30 busiest U.S. airports facing severe shortages of air traffic controllers, travelers are experiencing flight cancellations and several hour delays at airports all across the country. The nation’s 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 Transportation Security Administration staff are considered “essential workers” and required by law to work without pay during the shutdown. But that’s stressful, so some controllers have had to take second jobs to make ends meet. Thousands have been calling in sick. Nearly 80 percent of air traffic controllers have been absent at New York–area facilities, with Dallas and other airports reporting staffing-related delays. Thousands of flights have been delayed or cancelled, stranding passengers and with problems mounting daily.
Federal civilian workers: More than 700,000 federal employees have been furloughed with no pay during this shutdown, which is becoming an increasingly deep financial hardship for workers and their families. Food banks across the US have reported an increase in the number of federal workers asking for help, and some workers have had to take out bank loans to pay the bills. Some have had difficulty accessing unemployment benefits, caught in a Trumpian Catch-22: unemployment benefits are state-based, and the states must verify an applicant’s job status and earnings with their federal employer. But the shutdown has delayed federal agenciesfrom providing this information. With November arriving, these workers were informed that their furlough will be extended another 30 days until December. Not only that, unlike October’s notification which guaranteed back pay once the shutdown ended, this latest notice no longer contains that guarantee. If the shutdown continues until December, some 4.5 million pay checks will have been withheld from federal employees, amounting to $21 billion in missing wages. Happy Thanksgiving!
National parks: The nation’s 63 national parks have remained symbolically open, but the shutdown has turned most parks into ghost towns, with little to no staffing or access to amenities and facilities. Some states, including Utah, Colorado, Tennessee and West Virginia, whose economy is dependent on the tourists that come to their parks, have tapped state budgets to keep the federal parks open.
For the national economy, the government shutdown is endangering the robust GDP growth seen in the summer and early fall. It’s also increasing unemployment, as well as losses for businesses and contractors reliant on federal services. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the five week shutdown in 2018-2019 reduced real GDP by $11 billion, and that some of the lost output was never recovered. We are about to surpass that.
Everyday Americans stepping up to the challenge
All in all, it’s a heck of a mess, with no end in sight. But Americans are an intrepid people, and doing what they must to help each other. An elementary school teacher is raising funds for groceries for his child-students. A hair salon owner is taking donations and redistributing them to her poorer clients. Grocery buddies are sponsoring a neighbor’s family. Restaurants, local soup kitchens and food pantries are stepping up where the federal government has fallen down. State governments in California, New York and elsewhere are making up some of the lost federal funds.
There have been fourteen gaps in federal funding since 1981, most of them shutdowns of short duration. The longest previous government shutdown ever was 35 days, which the nation will pass on Wednesday. That one also occurred under Donald Trump, during his first term over a dispute with Congress for funding Trump’s Mexican border wall. But this current fight between Trump and the Congress is about something else – soaring health care costs for tens of millions of Americans.
The looming health care crisis
When President Trump passed his One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, he extended billions of dollars in income tax credits for a handful of the wealthiest Americans. But unfortunately he did not continue Affordable Care Act financial supports that helped a record 24 million Americans to afford healthcare. Consequently, healthcare premiums are about to massively spike on January 1. Healthcare experts at KFF estimate that if the ACA financial supports are allowed to expire, when combined with insurance companies’ premium increases by a record average of 26%, ACA enrollees will see their overall monthly premium payments more than double on average. Millions of Americans will not be able to afford the higher premiums and will likely lose their healthcare entirely.
The White House provides Cadillac benefits for those it favors, and Rent-a-Junk benefits for everyone else. As more people are learning about the Trump administration’s plans for their health care, it is spreading alarm and uncertainty across the country. To their credit, a handful of US Senators, all of them Democrats, have stood up for these panicked Americans by refusing to give the Trump administration the votes it needs to bridge the funding gap. Certainly with all of the hurt that so many Americans are feeling over the government shutdown, it’s natural to wonder who to point the finger. Oftentimes in such situations there is enough blame to go around on both sides.
But this time, let’s not forget what this fight is over – affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans. This is not a time to play politics, it’s time to do the right thing. I sometimes wonder if the federal government would be more responsive if members of the Trump administration and Congress didn’t have Cadillac benefits for themselves, and instead had Rent-a-Junk benefits like millions of their fellow Americans?
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

Margarita Moreno works at the mail room in the Phoenix campus of Keys to Change, a collaborative of 15 nonprofit organizations that serve homeless people.
Carl Steiner walked to the window of a small gray building near downtown Phoenix and gave a worker his name. He stepped away with a box and a cellphone bill.
The box is what Steiner had come for: It contained black and red Reebok sneakers to use in his new warehouse job.
Steiner doesn’t have a permanent address. His letters and packages are delivered to a mail room for homeless people in the building at the Keys to Change campus, a collaborative of 15 nonprofit organizations that serve those like him.
He and thousands of others have received mail here for years. They use the address for job applications, for medication, to receive benefits like food stamp cards and even to vote. And for 20 years, the U.S. Postal Service provided at least 20% of the mail room’s budget.
But last month, the postal service ended its support of $24,000 a year because a nearby post office is “able to fully serve the community,” a spokesperson said in a statement to ProPublica.
Unlike a standard post office, Keys to Change allows people to receive mail without a government ID, a common problem for some who are homeless.
This year, Keys to Change will spend about $117,000 to help 7,000 people get their mail. Although the cost is minimal relative to the nonprofit’s budget, it’s a “crucial part” of helping people exit homelessness, said Amy Schwabenlender, the organization’s CEO.
“It really is a priceless thing that we can offer to our clients,” Schwabenlender said.
The loss of support from the Postal Service comes at a time of uncertainty for one of Arizona’s largest nonprofit homeless services providers and similar organizations nationwide. Keys to Change says it will seek donations to keep the mail room open.
But there will be less money for such services as President Donald Trump and his administration take a very different approach to homelessness than his predecessors.
Trump is calling for large reductions to assistance grants, as well as their restructuring. More than half of Keys to Change’s funding comes from government agreements, Schwabenlender said.
The president has also issued an executive order urging cities to remove people who live outdoors by enforcing camping bans and institutionalizing those experiencing mental health or substance use disorders. The order also calls for ending support for programs that prioritize housing and services.
With funding shifting to support a more punitive approach to homelessness, even small programs like the mail room could be strained. The loss of the Postal Service’s assistance is not related to these budget cuts, but for providers it leaves one more gap to fill. Some, like Keys to Change, said they’ll be forced to do more with less federal support as demand for assistance is increasing.
Record numbers of people are looking for help. Last year, Keys to Change served 20,000 people, up from 18,000 the year before, according to the organization, which is also seeing the loss of COVID-era relief funding.
“There’s a definite air of uncertainty and fear, and that is both amongst providers and among people experiencing homelessness,” said Donald Whitehead, the executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, a nonprofit organization that advocates for homeless people. Whitehead expects some of the Trump administration’s changes will increase, not reduce, the number of people on the street.
Carl Steiner opens a box of shoes for a new job at a warehouse. Ash Ponders for ProPublica
First image: Moreno and Joe Medina in the mail room. Medina has worked there since 2019 and was a former Keys to Change client. Second image: Medina sorts through envelopes to find mail for the unhoused community the facility serves. Ash Ponders for ProPublicaJoe Medina has worked in the mail room since 2019 and knows some of the people he serves by name.
A former client at Keys to Change, he started as a volunteer doing odd jobs on the campus before moving into a full-time job in the mail room.
On a recent Friday, he meticulously sorted letters into alphabetized bins.
Paul Babcock approached the mail room window and handed Medina an identification card.
But Medina immediately recognized Babcock and handed him a package.
“Thanks, I’ll see you again soon,” said Babcock, who has been homeless on and off since 2012 and used the mail room for all of that time. Babcock opened his delivery to find a sweatshirt. For the cold weather, he said.
Babcock said having an address has helped him while he lives on the streets. He has received mail from the Social Security Administration, replacement identification cards about five times and chocolate chip cookies from his mother. “I’ve gotten everything from here,” Babcock said.
When people don’t retrieve their mail, Medina sometimes tells others to put the word out so they know to come get it.
“The ones who are coming for their mail are doing something for themselves, no matter how small,” Medina said. Some visit multiple times a day hoping for a letter or a package, he said. But sometimes they leave disappointed.
Medina greeted a woman by name, before retreating to check the bins. “Nothing right now,” he told her.
In 2009, the Postal Service threatened to cut its funding for the mail room, according to reporting by the Arizona Republic. The contract had come up for review because the location doesn’t generate revenue. “We’ve been giving them a donation, and we can no longer do that,” a postal official told the newspaper at the time.
The Postal Service reduced its funding but didn’t eliminate it and said it would create a “public service” contract for the homeless services provider. It’s unclear if it moved forward with that plan. The latest Keys to Change mail room contract appears unchanged from the 2009 agreement, according to Schwabenlender.
A Postal Service spokesperson declined to comment on the terms of the mail room agreement, calling such contracts “confidential.”
When Postal Service officials contacted the Keys to Change in May to inform the organization that the contract would end, they said the agreement “requires financial transactions that include revenue generation,” according to emails provided to ProPublica.
In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, more people are entering homelessness than leaving. For every 19 new people experiencing homelessness, 10 people find housing, according to a regional nonprofit that coordinates homeless services.
After Tammy Mcauley left an abusive relationship, her car broke down, causing her to lose her job as a housekeeper. She’s been homeless for a year and most recently lived in a shelter.
She walked up to retrieve her mail with her dog, Mousie, perched in a stroller.
“It makes it so that we can still be people,” Mcauley said of the service.
Later that day, a FedEx truck pulled up to the mail room. The driver dropped off two boxes from Walmart.
Medina knew who they were for and set them aside until they came to get them.
Medina greets a man outside the Keys to Change mail room. Ash Ponders for ProPublicaU.S. Postal Service Cuts Funding for a Phoenix Mail Room Assisting Homeless People was first published on ProPublica and republished with permission.
Nicole Santa Cruz writes about inequality in the Southwest.