As the chief executive of the U.S.
Government, the president is tasked with executing the law—the passage thereof
involving both the Congress and the presidency. It follows that a president
cannot legally stand in the way of appropriated federal funding of projects and
programs once such allocations have become law. For otherwise, a president
could simply ignore appropriations passed by the Congress and signed into law
by a previous president. The powers of the unitary executive would reach
dictatorial proportions. Within roughly one week of being sworn into office for
his second term in 2025, U.S. President Trump decided to pause all foreign aid,
and “grants, loans and other federal assistance . . . to ensure spending is
consistent with Trump’s priorities.”[1]
Those priorities, I submit, would properly have influence on bills in Congress
that were not yet laws, as per the legislative veto-power of the presidency and
the ability of a president to put pressure on members of Congress by speaking
persuasively directly to the American people. The value of leadership available
to a presiding role should not be ignored. In terms of symbolic leadership
befitting a presider in chief, refusing to enforce laws sends the wrong signal.
To be sure, delaying rather than cancelling funding that has
already been appropriated as law may fall within reasonable discretion that
goes with the executing, and thus executive, function. However, the size, or
magnitude, of the federal spending being held up but not cancelled may test the
test of reasonableness. This may also be so if the political dimension—that
is, the salience of political judgment in the issues involved—is significant.
1. James Fitzgerald and Ana Faguy, “White House Pauses Federal Grants and Loans,” BBC.com, January 28, 2025.
