Fact Check: The Trump administration's withholding of funds is illegal and an executive overreach.

Fact Check: "The Trump administration's withholding of funds is illegal and an executive overreach."

What We Know

The claim that the Trump administration's withholding of funds is illegal and constitutes an executive overreach is supported by various legal interpretations and actions taken by Congress. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), impoundment—the act of delaying or canceling appropriations enacted into law—is unlawful. The GAO, along with the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and the Supreme Court, has consistently disavowed any notion of inherent presidential power to impound funds without congressional approval. This is reinforced by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which explicitly restricts the President's authority to withhold or delay funds.

The Trump administration issued several executive orders that effectively froze federal funding appropriated by Congress, including those related to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These actions were characterized as unlawful impoundments, as they did not follow the legal procedures outlined in the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the President to notify Congress of any proposed withholding of funds.

Additionally, a formal request for investigation into these funding suspensions was made by Senator Jeff Merkley and Congressman Brendan Boyle, emphasizing that these actions violate Congress's constitutional powers and undermine the separation of powers established in the Constitution (Merkley and Boyle Call for GAO Investigation).

Analysis

The evidence supporting the claim of illegality and executive overreach is substantial. The GAO's findings indicate that the Trump administration's actions were not only unprecedented but also legally questionable. The executive orders issued on the first day of Trump's presidency, which aimed to freeze funding, were criticized for centralizing power within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and creating confusion among federal agencies and stakeholders (Background on Unlawful Impoundment).

Critically, the legal framework established by the Impoundment Control Act requires transparency and timely notification to Congress whenever budget authority is withheld. The Trump administration's failure to adhere to these requirements raises significant legal and ethical concerns. Furthermore, federal courts have ruled that the administration violated federal law by withholding appropriated funds without proper authorization (Merkley and Boyle Call for GAO Investigation). This judicial backing reinforces the argument that the administration's actions were not just politically contentious but also legally indefensible.

While some sources may present arguments in favor of the administration's actions, such as claims of executive prerogative, these arguments lack substantial legal grounding and are often dismissed by established legal precedents (Many Trump Administration Fiscal and Regulatory Actions). The overall consensus among legal experts and government oversight bodies is that the Trump administration's funding freezes were unlawful.

Conclusion

Verdict: True
The claim that the Trump administration's withholding of funds is illegal and constitutes an executive overreach is substantiated by legal interpretations, congressional actions, and judicial rulings. The administration's failure to comply with the Impoundment Control Act and the subsequent investigations into these actions highlight a clear violation of established law and the constitutional principle of congressional authority over fiscal matters.