Why ‘Impoundment’ matters

As a new presidential administration prepares to take office, one issue that could reemerge is impoundment – the withholding or delaying of funds that Congress has allocated for specific purposes. While the term may seem obscure, its implications strike at the heart of the constitutional balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. Americans should take the time to familiarize themselves with this concept, as it could become a focal point of policy disputes after Jan. 20.

The Constitution firmly vests Congress with the “power of the purse,” entrusting it with the exclusive authority to raise and allocate public funds. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled against such unilateral actions, affirming that the president cannot ignore congressional mandates.

Impoundment became a significant issue during President Nixon’s administration, when he withheld funding for numerous programs authorized by Congress. The judiciary repeatedly ruled against his actions, asserting that the executive branch has no inherent constitutional authority to withhold funds. These rulings led to the enactment of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974, which formalized a process for addressing disputes over appropriations. Under the ICA, a president can propose to rescind (cancel) specific funding, but Congress must approve the rescission within 45 days. Without congressional consent, the funds must be spent as originally directed.

The ICA is not a restriction on presidential power but a mechanism to preserve constitutional principles. It reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress retains ultimate control over federal spending while allowing the president to request changes through a transparent and time-limited process. This law was designed to prevent the executive branch from undermining legislative intent and to safeguard public funds from unilateral decision-making.

Recently, there has been renewed discussion about whether the ICA should be repealed, and some argue that it imposes unnecessary constraints on the presidency. However, these claims overlook the broader constitutional context. The ICA does not grant new powers to Congress; it simply codifies existing constitutional requirements. Without such safeguards, the executive branch could amass disproportionate fiscal authority, upsetting the delicate balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has highlighted that attempts to bypass the ICA could lead to contentious battles over appropriations. As these debates unfold, it is essential for the public to understand what is at stake. Impoundment is not merely a procedural matter; it is a test of the constitutional principle that laws enacted by Congress must be faithfully executed by the president.

As the Jan. 20 inauguration approaches, Americans should anticipate that impoundment and related issues may resurface in political and legal discourse. Understanding this concept will be crucial for evaluating the actions of government leaders and holding them accountable to constitutional norms. At its core, impoundment is a reminder that the power of the purse rests with Congress – a cornerstone of democratic governance that ensures fiscal decisions reflect the will of the people.

This discussion underscores the need for vigilance in preserving the separation of powers. With the prospect of impoundment controversies ahead, informed citizens will be better equipped to engage in discussions about government accountability and the rule of law.