A 'constitutional crisis?' Democrats, Republicans spar over Donald Trump's spending order

Congressional Democrats and good-government groups say President Donald Trump's Monday night directive to pause the distribution of trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans represents an immense power grab that would upend the constitutional separation of powers between different branches of government.

The legal wrangling began immediately on Tuesday when six Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of nonprofits filed two lawsuits to block Trump's move. The stakes are existential, according to Trump's opponents.

"We have a constitutional crisis,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. “The point is, the president doesn’t get to decide.”

Senate Democrats also said Tuesday morning that panic was spreading among people who rely on Meals on Wheels for food, on hospitals for health care or on cancer studies for treatment – all which receive federal appropriations.

“This memo is creating chaos and confusion about whether these resources will be available to them,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said.

A federal judge has already paused the order until at least Feb. 3, when a hearing will be held on the dispute.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the "power of the purse" – the power to spend money on federal programs and to tax residents to pay for it. The presidency has sweeping powers of his own, but spending has long been considered the legislative branch's most fundamental authority.

“I have certainly never seen anything like this,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of the good-government group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, said. "I have never seen the executive branch try to unilaterally take control of spending without regard to what Congress has passed into law.”

“We cannot function as a democracy in this country if we cannot respect and abide by our agreements in Congress,” said Murray.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on those concerns during a briefing to journalists Tuesday.

“This is certainly within the confines of the law,“ Leavitt said. “White House Counsel's Office believes that this is within the president's power to do it, and therefore he’s doing it."

"The reason for this is to ensure every penny that is going out the door is not conflicting with the executive orders and actions that this president has taken," Leavitt said.

That argument was echoed by congressional Republicans.

"I hope this sets a precedent to make sure that if we allocate taxpayer dollars that they are going to fund in an efficient and effective manner to what we've told the American people it's going to fund," said Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., the No. 4-ranking Republican in the House.

What the Trump administration means for you: Sign up for USA TODAY's On Politics newsletter.

Precedent on presidential spending power

A 1974 law requires the president to ask for authority not to spend money that lawmakers had appropriated. And the Supreme Court upheld congressional spending power in a 1996 decision that ruled it unconstitutional for a president to cancel only one part of a law, also known as a line-item veto.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, called the White House's move "blatantly unconstitutional."

"Article I says Congress has the power to appropriate funds. Article II says the president executes the laws that the Congress passes," King said. "To me, this is one of the most serious attempts at the usurpation of congressional power and constitutional division of power in American history."

An Office of Management and Budget memo distributed Tuesday argued “temporary pauses” of funds fall under a president’s powers and have been used by past presidents “to ensure that programs are being executed and funds spent in accordance with a new President’s policies.”

Leavitt said that people receiving individual assistance from the federal government will see payments continue, including Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, food stamps and welfare, despite Democrats flagging service portals across multiple states being pulled down Tuesday.

Republicans back up Trump

Most congressional Republicans have defended the order as a necessary and reasonable step to reevaluate spending priorities under a new administration. They argued that Trump's measure will save money by eliminating alleged fraud, and will eventually be spent as Congress intended.

"Our spending is out of control," Rep. McClain said. "There is something we can to rein in spending right now, immediately. Why shouldn't we do it?"

Multiple Republican members characterized the pause as a temporary measure that would eventually follow the letter of the law and will simply be a check on the final days of spending under the Biden administration.

"The money eventually would go out, I'd assume," said Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I think it's fair, when you know that they're writing checks up until the last minute, was it sent out correctly, who's getting the money, I think it's fair to ask that question."

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he was concerned about the president's move, saying Tuesday morning that he was already getting questions from his constituents about it. Bacon is one of only three House Republicans who represent a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in the 2024 presidential election.

"I hope it's short lived because there's real people depend on these grants. Real people with real jobs," he said. Asked whether it's legal, he added, "I'm not a lawyer but it was appropriated so I don't see how they could just stop it."

Bacon told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he is glad that the scope of the order isn't as sweeping as he first thought – and confirmed that he received pushback for his morning comments.

Some experts in constitutional law are echoing Democrats' concerns. Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the memo appeared in “flagrant violation” of a federal law that prohibits presidents from unilaterally stopping spending that already has been approved by Congress, called the Impoundment Control Act.

Contributing: Zac Anderson, Erin Mansfield, Savannah Kuchar and Reuters.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congressional Democrats, Republicans spar over Trump's spending order