The White House is preparing to pursue a legal challenge to the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that restricts a president’s ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, as it attempts to codify the Trump administration’s Domestic Spending Reduction (DOGE) initiatives. With Congress offering little support for the formal rescission package—a proposal that would claw back nearly $9 billion in previously approved federal spending—the administration is considering a broader, two-year window to enact these cuts and potentially challenge the legal basis of the Impoundment Act. This development could mark a significant expansion of executive power, allowing the president to unilaterally freeze funding.
Initially, the Trump administration aimed to secure congressional approval of a specific rescissions package, which would include major cuts to USAID and public broadcasting entities like NPR and PBS. However, the Senate, dominated by Republicans, has proven to be a formidable obstacle. While the package only requires a simple majority to pass, the political climate on Capitol Hill has made its passage increasingly unlikely. Instead, the White House is exploring alternative strategies, including the possibility of contesting the Impound, which was enacted to limit the president’s discretionary power over federal spending.
The impasse has drawn strong criticism from fiscal conservatives, many of whom argue that the current proposed cuts are insufficient and do not reflect the scale of the financial challenges facing the federal government. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been vocal in his critique, stating that the $9 billion rescission package is merely a rounding error and that the administration should aim for more substantial cuts. However, the GOP’s procedural constraints—such as the inability to use DOGE savings to offset the cost of extending Trump’s tax cuts—have further complicated the situation.
As the White House faces mounting pressure to ensure the sustainability of DOGE cuts, the potential legal battle over the Impoundment Act could set the stage for a broader confrontation over executive authority in the realm of federal spending. If the administration succeeds in its legal challenge, it would mark a significant shift in the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, with far-reaching implications for the future of fiscal policy in the United States.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has expressed cautious support for the rescission effort, but many other Republicans, including Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), have been more skeptical. “I don’t know that we should be taking our limited legislative time to look at that,” Wicker said. Collins, the Senate’s Appropriations Committee chair, has also raised concerns about the cuts, particularly regarding global women’s health programs and PEPFAR. “I don’t see those passing,” she told the Washington Post.
The ongoing resistance to codifying these cuts has significant implications for the future of the DOGE initiative. While the group has claimed over $160 billion in savings, much of this is estimated to be unilateral, and potentially reversible executive actions. Without congressional approval, the cuts may not be durable, leaving the administration with a diminished ability to enforce its fiscal policy. As the political and legal landscape continues to evolve, the administration’s next steps will be crucial in determining the long-term impact of its spending reductions.