Republicans want Trump to gain enormous control over government spending

• A group of Republicans recently introduced a bill to repeal the Impoundment Control Act.

• It would give Trump more control over government spending – he could even halt it unilaterally.

• Several Republicans who supported the bill told BI they had no problem giving up Congress’s power.

Ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are willing to do something unusual: give up some of their own power over federal spending.

More than two dozen Republicans this month co-sponsored a bill that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, or ICA, a Watergate-era law that requires the president to spend whatever money Congress approves. Absent that law and subsequent court rulings, the president would have the power to spend less money than what Congress decides — or refuse to spend money on certain programs altogether.

That would entail a massive shift in power from the legislative to the executive, upending the balance between the two that has existed for fifty years. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say this is their best hope for passing spending cuts and reducing the national debt, given Congress’ history of inaction and what they see as their colleagues’ unwillingness to reduce spending.

“I think the spending is just out of control, and I think Congress is being cowardly,” Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Business Insider. “I just don’t think we’re going to be able to make changes without some other interference, whether it’s the executive branch or the voters.”

“If energy cuts spending, I’m all for it,” Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri told BI. “Something has to be done.”

“Look where we are in this country, why don’t we give him that power?” Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told BI, citing the country’s budget situation. “Right now, I’m willing to take that risk. Anything can be abused. I could drink too much water and get hurt.”

The Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a request for comment.

‘We can just suffocate the money’

Trump is no stranger to seizures – his first impeachment was caused by his refusal to provide aid to Ukraine. As he mounts his third presidential bid, Trump has argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and should be abolished, either through repeal by Congress or through the courts.

“With sequestration we can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “I alone can do that.”

As Trump has expanded his administration, he has appointed staunch proponents of seizure to key positions. That includes Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta, who have been nominated for their previously held positions of director and general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, respectively.

The president-elect’s allies have argued that seizure is a constitutional power that all presidents possess, because of the president’s duty under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

They also point out that for about 200 years before 1974—when Congress passed the ICA when President Richard Nixon refused to spend money on programs he disagreed with—presidents of all stripes used confiscation for a variety of reasons. , including disagreements over policy.

“When Congress passes a spending bill, we pass a cap,” Rep. Andrew Clyde, the Georgia Republican who introduced the ICA repeal bill, told BI. “It’s not floor and ceiling put together on one song.”

More recently, the seizure has been embraced by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, whose Department of Government Efficiency initiative aims to implement trillions of dollars in cuts to federal spending. The duo publicly agrees with Trump’s argument that the ICA is unconstitutional, and the topic came up when they visited Capitol Hill to speak to Republicans earlier this month.

“I look at it as a tool to save money and be more efficient,” Clyde said. “That is literally what the American people demanded in this election.”

‘Maybe this is too broad’

There are many opponents of the Capitol Hill backwater, including among Republicans. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the new Republican Party chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has told reporters she opposes repealing the ICA. And it’s not just Trump’s skeptics who are uncomfortable with that.

“If it’s something that further weakens the ability of Congress to do its job as it should, then I’m going to look at that very carefully,” Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada told BI in November.

Key Democrats have meanwhile voiced their opposition to Trump’s surge plans. Representative Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a fact sheet arguing against seizure.

“The legal theories of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous,” Boyle said in a statement. “Unilaterally cutting funds rightfully appropriated by our elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and endangers families and communities.”

Republican skepticism, along with Democrats’ likely opposition to any effort to give Trump more purchasing power, could make repealing the law through Congress an uphill battle.

The president-elect said in the 2023 video that he will “do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court,” setting up a high-stakes legal battle early in his second term.

What remains unclear is exactly how extensively Trump would attempt to seize. For some Republicans who support the effort, it’s just about spending less than necessary. Others warn that Trump could use that power in a retaliatory way, by denying states and localities federal funding over policy disagreements.

Even those who co-sponsored the ICA repeal bill have expressed some ambivalence about its potential implications.

“Maybe this is too broad. I don’t know,” Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona told BI. “But I can tell you this: If you have a president who says, ‘I don’t need $10 billion, I need $2 billion,’ I wish they wouldn’t spend the $8 billion. That’s actually the goal. “I think.”

Read the original article on Business Insider