President Donald Trump has clawed back billions in congressionally approved spending during his second term, a move that some lawmakers fear could set a Supreme Court-backed precedent lasting for generations.
“I’m worried,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), a top Democrat and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee which allocates federal spending, speaking with Politico in a report published Tuesday.
Trump’s second term in office has been unprecedented regarding the amount of federal spending he’s clawed back, given the U.S. Constitution's clear reference to Congress holding the sole ability to control government spending. The White House revoked $9 billion in funding already appropriated for public broadcasting and foreign aid in July, issued a temporary pause of federal grants and loans in January, and moved to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid spending on Friday.
The Supreme Court has also been slow to weigh in on the matter, and now seem unlikely to issue a ruling on any of the handful of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration for its funding clawbacks until at least next year. Given the court’s recent history of siding with the Trump administration, however, Merkley fears that even when the court ultimately does take up a case challenging the president’s authority to clawback funding, it won’t bode well.
“They’re inventing what they thought was good policy,” Markley said, speaking of the Supreme Court justices. “That’s not their role, and so they’re violating their oath of office through the Constitution. So we’re in deep trouble when this comes to the Supreme Court.”
Another lawmaker made a prediction, that when the Supreme Court ultimately does begin to take up cases related to the White House’s authority to clawback spending, its decisions will reverberate for centuries.
“My prediction is: when we look back on this administration, there’ll be more Supreme Court decisions defining separation of powers than in the 250-year history of the country,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), speaking with Politico.
“It’s a reasonable question to ask, and it’s never been all the way to the Supreme Court. And of course, everybody has to adhere to what the final decision will be.”
