Trump’s attempted funding freeze is direct assault on our Constitution and Congress

By U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine

The Constitution of the United States — written in order to form a more perfect union — established specific powers delegated to each branch of the government as a check on the others. That’s why it is notable that the president has decided to withhold congressionally appropriated funds; it’s actually beyond notable, it’s a profound constitutional issue.

In fact, I believe the president’s executive order is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress in the history of the United States.

It is blatantly unconstitutional. Article Two does not give the executive the power to determine budgets or expenditures. That power is vested in Article One of the Constitution — in the Congress. If the president’s unilateral and unprecedented move stands, then Congress may as well adjourn, because the implications suggest that the executive can pick and choose which congressional enactments they will execute.

Just last week, the president took an oath to faithfully execute the presidency of the United States and that he would support and defend the Constitution. That means to execute the laws that are passed by Congress, not edicts passed by the Office of Management and Budget. So I hope and believe that Maine people on all sides of the aisle will realize that this is not a political discussion. This is an institutional discussion that goes to the viability, authority, expertise and work that’s based upon the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton got to the heart of this issue in Federalist Paper 36. He writes, “Nations in general, even under governments of the more popular kind, usually commit the administration of their finances … which are afterwards passed into laws by the authority of the sovereign or legislature.”

The power of the purse is at the heart of the legislature and President Donald Trump’s executive order is just a complete usurpation of authority. I don’t say this without precedent, either. President Richard Nixon tried to do it, before the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Train v. City of New York that no one outside of the Congress could dictate allocation amounts of federal funds. For Trump to attempt to assert this power essentially renders the power of Congress a nullity.

James Madison believed that the interests of the individuals will enable them or empower them to stand up for the interests of the institution. I hope my colleagues understand this — this will redound to the detriment of both parties, whichever party is in charge. Imagine for a moment if President Joe Biden did this or there was a Republican Senate and Republican Congress, and they passed a statute saying we want to fund Head Start and Biden said, “No, I don’t like Head Start. I’d rather put the money over here.” We’d be hearing a lot of reaction. The reaction today should be coming from both sides.

So as someone who has worked in the law and worked with the Constitution for many, many years, I am shocked to the core because it’s so grossly, blatantly unconstitutional and threatening to the foundation of the separation of powers under the Constitution.

This column was adapted from King’s remarks following the chaos and uncertainty that emerged from President Donald Trump’s proposed freeze of federal aid and grants nationwide.