Vought withholds $410 billion in congressionally approved funds, calling the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional

The Constitution's Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9) states 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' This gives Congress, not the president, the final word on how and when federal money is spent. When the president signs an appropriations bill into law, spending those funds is a legal obligation — not a suggestion. Vought's claim that the president can unilaterally refuse to spend congressionally approved money directly contradicts 250 years of constitutional practice.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed specifically because President Nixon impounded billions in congressionally approved funds, claiming inherent executive authority to withhold money he disagreed with spending. Courts struck Nixon down.

The D.C. Circuit — including conservative judge Robert Bork, who had represented Nixon — ruled that without the ICA, the president had no authority at all to withhold appropriated funds.

The ICA created the only legal pathway: the president may formally request a rescission, Congress gets 45 days to act, and if Congress doesn't approve, the funds must be released. The 2013 D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the ICA is constitutional.

Vought used three tools to block spending without a congressional vote. Spending freezes halted disbursements mid-program — including $5 billion in EV charging infrastructure from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that states had already begun deploying.

Program pauses suspended active grants and contracts at DOE, HHS, DOT, and other agencies. And 'pocket rescissions' — submitting rescission requests with fewer than 45 days left in the fiscal year — guaranteed appropriated funds would expire before Congress could pass a rescission bill, effectively giving Vought a unilateral line-item veto the Supreme Court explicitly struck down in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

Vought directed agencies to hide the very data that would let Congress and the GAO catch him. In April 2025, the GAO sent Vought a formal letter demanding access to OMB apportionment documents — the internal directives OMB uses to tell agencies how to spend their funds. Vought refused.

OMB also directed federal agencies not to cooperate with GAO investigations and to ignore GAO findings of ICA violations. Vought dismissed GAO determinations on social media as 'non-events with no consequence. Rearview mirror stuff.' The CBPP called this tactic 'illegally hiding apportionment information' to prevent oversight.

The GAO opened 39 investigations into potential ICA violations by mid-2025 and issued confirmed findings of illegal impoundment at multiple agencies. The Energy Department violated the ICA by blocking $5 billion in EV charging infrastructure funds.

The Transportation Department violated it by freezing highway formula funds. HHS violated it by blocking grants.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services violated it. In each case, the administration either ignored the GAO finding or disputed its authority — a stance the Conference Board's policy analysis called 'dramatically different' from any prior administration's approach to federal appropriations law.

The pocket rescission is the most legally aggressive tool in Vought's arsenal. A formal rescission request triggers the 45-day clock under the ICA; if submitted 44 days before the fiscal year ends (September 30), the funds expire before Congress can act, achieving cancellation without a vote.

The GAO in 2018 — during Trump's first term, when Vought was OMB deputy director — already ruled this approach 'unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act.'

Then-GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong wrote it would be an 'abuse' of presidential power to shorten the availability of appropriations beyond the period Congress set. Vought pursued it anyway in 2025.

The $4.9 billion USAID pocket rescission became the test case. In August 2025, Trump formally submitted a rescission request for USAID funding with fewer than 45 days left in the fiscal year.

Because Congress could not pass a rescission bill in time, the funds expired — achieving a unilateral cancellation of foreign aid Congress had appropriated.

Sen. Collins called it a 'clear violation of the law.' Sen. Patty Murray called it an 'end run around Congress' and a 'retroactive line-item veto.' The GAO's statutory authority includes the right to sue the president to enforce the ICA — it has opened that question but not yet filed suit.

Vought has been explicit that this is ideological, not just managerial. In Project 2025 — the conservative governance blueprint Vought helped write before becoming OMB director — he described apportionments as 'the most powerful tool available to the executive branch' for overriding agency spending and called them 'indispensable' for controlling bureaucracies without legislation. At his Jan. 22, 2025 confirmation hearing, Vought said the administration plans to 'complete a review with the Justice Department to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act' — signaling from day one that he intended to challenge rather than follow the statute.