Appropriations Presidentialism: Executive Power vs. Congressional Authority

The Appropriations Process: De Facto Stability, De Jure Fragility

• ⚖️ The annual congressional appropriations process, which allocates about a third of the federal budget, is described as de facto stable but de jure fragile.
• 💡 While mandatory spending (like Social Security) is stable by law (de jure), annual appropriations are legally flexible (de jure fragile) as Congress can change them yearly.
• 📊 In practice (de facto), the process often shows stability due to consistent committees and budget-building from existing levels, though significant policy changes can occur.

Historical Context of Executive Overreach

• 🏛️ Executive overreach into Congress's appropriations power is not new, with historical examples dating back to the 19th century.
• 📈 The modern budget process began in 1921, requiring presidential budgets, and was reformed in 1974 to outlaw impoundments (not spending appropriated funds).
• ⚠️ Recent decades have seen increasing polarization leading presidents to assert more unilateral power, a trend significantly amplified in recent administrations.

Shifting Trust and Executive Actions

• 🤝 Congress generally trusts the executive branch to enforce its spending instructions, a trust that has been strained by isolated examples of presidents acting outside legal bounds.
• 🇺🇦 Examples include the Trump administration's shifts in border wall funding and the hold-up of Ukraine aid, which appeared to violate law.
• 🎓 The Biden administration faced Supreme Court disagreement on student loan forgiveness, deemed to be outside congressional lines, and a pause on wall funding that was accepted by GAO but pushed executive defiance.

Consequences of Executive Overreach

• 📉 Executive expansion of power over spending directly weakens Congress's authority, leading to individual plaintiffs seeking relief in courts when Congress is perceived as being