Obama, Reagan, Eisenhower Did It Too: Trump’s Spending Pause Is Constitutional

The Left and the media, ever eager to pounce on President Trump’s every move, have found their latest outrage: his decision to delay discretionary spending until his new cabinet members are installed. Predictably, the usual suspects are crying foul, declaring this a gross overreach, a violation of Congress’s power of the purse, and—of course—the end of democracy itself. The problem with their hysteria? They are ignoring both historical precedent and the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Trump is not refusing to spend the money Congress appropriated; he is merely ensuring that when it is spent, it is done so responsibly. However, even if he were to refuse to spend certain funds, he would be well within his constitutional authority to do so—despite Congress's belief to the contrary. And if history tells us anything, it is that presidents—Democrat and Republican alike—have exercised precisely this kind of discretion. In fact, not only does Trump have the right to delay discretionary spending, but one could argue he has an obligation to do so when reckless, wasteful expenditures threaten American interests. The Constitution does not empower Congress to micromanage executive spending timelines, and history is filled with examples of presidents exercising their discretion in spending appropriations.

The Debt Ceiling

Adding to the absurdity of the outrage over Trump’s spending delay is the fact that the government has literally run out of money. On her last day in office, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen notified President Trump that the government would hit the debt limit during his first week in office. With Congress failing to increase the debt ceiling, Yellen instructed the Treasury Department to implement "extraordinary measures" to keep the government afloat.

Extraordinary measures are financial maneuvers used by the Treasury to avoid breaching the debt ceiling, including suspending investments in government retirement funds like the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF), redeeming existing and suspending new investments of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and refraining from reinvesting maturing securities in the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund) of the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan.

These measures do not raise the debt ceiling; they merely delay the inevitable. They are temporary stopgaps that buy Congress time to increase or suspend the debt limit. The reality is clear: Congress has not given Trump additional borrowing authority, so it has no standing to complain about his decision to delay spending. If the House and Senate want the money spent immediately, they should act on the debt ceiling instead of posturing for the cameras.

Constitutional Separation of Powers

The U.S. Constitution clearly divides responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches. Congress controls appropriations—meaning it decides whether money can be spent and for what purpose—but it does not dictate when or how efficiently those funds must be used. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This gives the president—not Congress—the authority to execute spending in a manner that ensures efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.

This separation of powers prevents Congress from dictating the minutiae of executive administration. Appropriating funds is one thing; managing them effectively is another. And the responsibility of execution belongs squarely with the president.

Historical Precedents: Trump Is Hardly the First

President Trump’s decision to delay spending is not some unprecedented power grab. In fact, presidents have exercised this discretion for decades. The notion that he is required to blindly follow a spending timeline dictated by Congress is not only constitutionally dubious but contradicted by history.

Obama’s Delay of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): In 2013, President Obama unilaterally delayed key provisions of his own signature healthcare legislation, arguing that the administration needed more time to implement the law effectively. The delay affected employer mandates and reporting requirements, despite clear statutory deadlines. Congress howled in protest, yet the Obama administration maintained that executive discretion was necessary for the law’s proper implementation.

Reagan’s Suspension of Foreign Aid: In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan delayed and withheld foreign aid appropriations when he determined that the recipients—including some brutal regimes—were not aligned with American interests. His administration was heavily involved in vetting where the money went, ensuring that funds did not end up bolstering communist influence.

Eisenhower’s Infrastructure Spending Slowdown: President Dwight Eisenhower, concerned about inflationary pressures and inefficient spending, deliberately slowed infrastructure spending despite congressional appropriations for public works projects. His administration took a measured approach, ensuring that funds were deployed in a manner that maximized effectiveness rather than simply adhering to arbitrary timelines.

Trump’s decision to pause discretionary spending follows in this tradition of executive prudence. Unlike Congress—where politicians love to throw money at problems with little regard for oversight—Trump’s administration is ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on frivolous or even dangerous expenditures. Consider two particularly egregious examples his team uncovered:

$50 Million for Condoms in Gaza: Yes, you read that right. Bureaucrats were poised to send $50 million to Gaza to buy condoms—enough for 2.5 billion condoms. This was under the guise of “public health” assistance, but given Hamas’s control of the territory and their well-documented habit of misappropriating aid, one might ask: Was this truly a priority for American taxpayers?

$800 Million for a U.S. Embassy in Syria: The Biden administration had allocated $800 million for a new embassy in Syria—despite the fact that the country’s government was effectively controlled by Al-Qaeda affiliates. Building an expensive diplomatic complex in a war-torn region controlled by terrorists is not just reckless—it’s insanity.

Trump’s Duty to the American Taxpayer

Far from being an abuse of power, Trump’s decision to delay discretionary spending is a constitutional prerogative and a necessary safeguard against government waste. The Constitution’s Appropriations Clause gives Congress the authority to allocate funds, but it does not mandate an immediate or rigid timeline for spending. The executive branch, through the Take Care Clause, has the duty to ensure these funds are used efficiently and in the best interests of the American people. Historical precedent, from Reagan’s foreign aid delays to Obama’s ACA implementation postponements, confirms that presidents have long exercised this discretion to manage government resources prudently. History is replete with examples of presidents—both Democrat and Republican—exercising discretion over the pace of spending, and Trump’s actions are well within those precedents.

If anything, Congress should focus less on grandstanding and more on ensuring that its appropriations make sense in the first place. Until then, President Trump is doing exactly what the Constitution demands of him: executing the law faithfully, wisely, and with an eye toward the interests of the American people. And if that means delaying some of Washington’s more harebrained spending schemes, then so be it.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.