There is a law. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents the President from unilaterally defunding programs. While it does not have criminal penalties, the Anti-Deficiency Act prevents redirecting funds and has penalties.
January 15, 2026 at 5:56 AM
There is a law. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents the President from unilaterally defunding programs. While it does not have criminal penalties, the Anti-Deficiency Act prevents redirecting funds and has penalties.
I agree.
When we get out of this, will the easiest convictions be for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act?
Was the money appropriated? No. Did you spend it? Yes. Guilty.
Was the money appropriated? Yes. Did you spend it? No. Guilty.
When we get out of this, will the easiest convictions be for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act?
Was the money appropriated? No. Did you spend it? Yes. Guilty.
Was the money appropriated? Yes. Did you spend it? No. Guilty.
January 13, 2026 at 9:01 PM
I agree.
When we get out of this, will the easiest convictions be for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act?
Was the money appropriated? No. Did you spend it? Yes. Guilty.
Was the money appropriated? Yes. Did you spend it? No. Guilty.
When we get out of this, will the easiest convictions be for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act?
Was the money appropriated? No. Did you spend it? Yes. Guilty.
Was the money appropriated? Yes. Did you spend it? No. Guilty.
What would that clause do? He’s already violating the anti-impoundment act, but gonna obey a clause which says the same thing?
January 7, 2026 at 4:22 PM
What would that clause do? He’s already violating the anti-impoundment act, but gonna obey a clause which says the same thing?
What happens is the Democrats control the agenda, the committee assignments, and the spending bills.
They enforce the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-deficiency Act, and inject sanity into our system again. I don’t care about impeaching him; make him irrelevant.
They enforce the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-deficiency Act, and inject sanity into our system again. I don’t care about impeaching him; make him irrelevant.
January 7, 2026 at 11:46 AM
What happens is the Democrats control the agenda, the committee assignments, and the spending bills.
They enforce the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-deficiency Act, and inject sanity into our system again. I don’t care about impeaching him; make him irrelevant.
They enforce the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-deficiency Act, and inject sanity into our system again. I don’t care about impeaching him; make him irrelevant.
in fairness, I think Schumer knows this - it's why the dem CR bill from the previous shutdown fight contained (afaict) fairly stringent anti-impoundment measures.
this is one of the reasons why I think it was bad that a small group of dems broke with leadership to end the shutdown.
this is one of the reasons why I think it was bad that a small group of dems broke with leadership to end the shutdown.
January 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM
in fairness, I think Schumer knows this - it's why the dem CR bill from the previous shutdown fight contained (afaict) fairly stringent anti-impoundment measures.
this is one of the reasons why I think it was bad that a small group of dems broke with leadership to end the shutdown.
this is one of the reasons why I think it was bad that a small group of dems broke with leadership to end the shutdown.
how would we be able to trust that these concessions actually happen, unless the budget includes anti-impoundment measures? (and can we really expect Rs to accept those?)
imo the base expectation should be that trump will impound any concessions to dems. (as he's repeatedly promised house Rs.)
imo the base expectation should be that trump will impound any concessions to dems. (as he's repeatedly promised house Rs.)
January 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM
how would we be able to trust that these concessions actually happen, unless the budget includes anti-impoundment measures? (and can we really expect Rs to accept those?)
imo the base expectation should be that trump will impound any concessions to dems. (as he's repeatedly promised house Rs.)
imo the base expectation should be that trump will impound any concessions to dems. (as he's repeatedly promised house Rs.)
this is good but appropriators need to include anti-impoundment mechanisms
Congress set to reject Trump’s major budget cuts to NSF, NASA, and energy science. Story by @policyhound.bsky.social www.science.org/content/arti...
Congress set to reject Trump’s major budget cuts to NSF, NASA, and energy science
Appropriators agree instead to keep this year’s spending nearly level
www.science.org
January 6, 2026 at 4:52 PM
this is good but appropriators need to include anti-impoundment mechanisms
In Sunday night’s newsletter, I highlighted some of the nearly 250 posts I’ve published at Law Dork this year — and that’s not counting the many breaking news notes and subscriber chats.
If you’re not already signed up, join us for 2026: www.lawdork.com
If you’re not already signed up, join us for 2026: www.lawdork.com
December 29, 2025 at 10:55 PM
In Sunday night’s newsletter, I highlighted some of the nearly 250 posts I’ve published at Law Dork this year — and that’s not counting the many breaking news notes and subscriber chats.
If you’re not already signed up, join us for 2026: www.lawdork.com
If you’re not already signed up, join us for 2026: www.lawdork.com
If being "radical left" means I oppose monopolies, the impoundment of appropriated funds, racism, those who violate federal laws and the U.S. Constitution and a dictatorship...then 75M of my friends and I say:
F...ING YES! Anti-fascism, anti-bigotry, anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-corruption.
F...ING YES! Anti-fascism, anti-bigotry, anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-corruption.
December 28, 2025 at 1:04 AM
If being "radical left" means I oppose monopolies, the impoundment of appropriated funds, racism, those who violate federal laws and the U.S. Constitution and a dictatorship...then 75M of my friends and I say:
F...ING YES! Anti-fascism, anti-bigotry, anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-corruption.
F...ING YES! Anti-fascism, anti-bigotry, anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-corruption.
A violation of at least 3 federal laws regarding such actions; Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Separation of Powers & Congress’s “Power of the Purse” & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine (10th Amendment)! I guess we’ll add another law suit to his multiple infringements of federal law & Constitution!
December 11, 2025 at 7:12 PM
A violation of at least 3 federal laws regarding such actions; Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Separation of Powers & Congress’s “Power of the Purse” & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine (10th Amendment)! I guess we’ll add another law suit to his multiple infringements of federal law & Constitution!
ok. That’s makes sense. Misapplication of federal law affects ppl in their state. aren’t there a slew of other laws that affect ppl in their states that they could be trying to enforce? ethics laws, emoluments, hatch act violations, anti-impoundment act, bribery, insider trading, etc?
December 10, 2025 at 6:14 AM
ok. That’s makes sense. Misapplication of federal law affects ppl in their state. aren’t there a slew of other laws that affect ppl in their states that they could be trying to enforce? ethics laws, emoluments, hatch act violations, anti-impoundment act, bribery, insider trading, etc?
Potential violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act.
Potential violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Potential violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Potential violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Potential violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
December 3, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Potential violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act.
Potential violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Potential violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Potential violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Potential violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yup - and AHRQ got a new Director in July - Roger D. Klein, MD JD AFTER the RIF….
And he put out new research agenda for AHRQ in Sept…. (Plus lots more questionable actions…
Anti-deficiency act violations, impoundment control act violations, appropriations violations, RIF violations ….
And he put out new research agenda for AHRQ in Sept…. (Plus lots more questionable actions…
Anti-deficiency act violations, impoundment control act violations, appropriations violations, RIF violations ….
December 1, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Yup - and AHRQ got a new Director in July - Roger D. Klein, MD JD AFTER the RIF….
And he put out new research agenda for AHRQ in Sept…. (Plus lots more questionable actions…
Anti-deficiency act violations, impoundment control act violations, appropriations violations, RIF violations ….
And he put out new research agenda for AHRQ in Sept…. (Plus lots more questionable actions…
Anti-deficiency act violations, impoundment control act violations, appropriations violations, RIF violations ….
He has no authority to do countless things that he’s doing, starting with the imposition of tariffs, then rapidly moving to things like to ignoring the Anti-deficiency Act, the Impoundment Control Act, etc.
“Executive Orders” are glorified interoffice memos.
He’s an idiot, but also insane.
“Executive Orders” are glorified interoffice memos.
He’s an idiot, but also insane.
November 29, 2025 at 12:34 AM
He has no authority to do countless things that he’s doing, starting with the imposition of tariffs, then rapidly moving to things like to ignoring the Anti-deficiency Act, the Impoundment Control Act, etc.
“Executive Orders” are glorified interoffice memos.
He’s an idiot, but also insane.
“Executive Orders” are glorified interoffice memos.
He’s an idiot, but also insane.
Laws. You need enforceable laws.
The government has ethics. You have a party that does not care and for whom there are no consequences.
You could start by impeaching everyone who violated the Hatch Act, the Budget Control and Impoundment Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, etc
The government has ethics. You have a party that does not care and for whom there are no consequences.
You could start by impeaching everyone who violated the Hatch Act, the Budget Control and Impoundment Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, etc
November 19, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Laws. You need enforceable laws.
The government has ethics. You have a party that does not care and for whom there are no consequences.
You could start by impeaching everyone who violated the Hatch Act, the Budget Control and Impoundment Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, etc
The government has ethics. You have a party that does not care and for whom there are no consequences.
You could start by impeaching everyone who violated the Hatch Act, the Budget Control and Impoundment Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, etc
Even if you accept that he has independent authority to tax (tariffs), and that the anti-impoundment act is unconstitutional (congressional appropriations are ceilings not floors), he still can’t supplement appropriations or spend money without an appropriation. So where is the tariff money?
November 11, 2025 at 9:23 AM
Even if you accept that he has independent authority to tax (tariffs), and that the anti-impoundment act is unconstitutional (congressional appropriations are ceilings not floors), he still can’t supplement appropriations or spend money without an appropriation. So where is the tariff money?
this was my ask before this. I wanted anti-impoundment language to tee up an impeachment when we retake control.
they get ACA subsidies, we get anti-impoundment
they get ACA subsidies, we get anti-impoundment
November 10, 2025 at 6:34 PM
this was my ask before this. I wanted anti-impoundment language to tee up an impeachment when we retake control.
they get ACA subsidies, we get anti-impoundment
they get ACA subsidies, we get anti-impoundment
I am generally loathe to argue with people who could be best served by a google search, but the anti-deficiency act is not more protective than the impoundment control act. The prior RIFs were illegal. The attempted October RIFs were illegal. Future RIFs will be illegal, that didn’t stop them before
November 10, 2025 at 3:38 PM
I am generally loathe to argue with people who could be best served by a google search, but the anti-deficiency act is not more protective than the impoundment control act. The prior RIFs were illegal. The attempted October RIFs were illegal. Future RIFs will be illegal, that didn’t stop them before
Force Rs to end the filibuster and govern alone. Or at the very least they should have made their votes contingent on strong anti-impoundment, no-kings type provisions.
November 10, 2025 at 6:19 AM
Force Rs to end the filibuster and govern alone. Or at the very least they should have made their votes contingent on strong anti-impoundment, no-kings type provisions.
How can Dems accept ANYTHING without some tangible guarantee that tRump won’t redirect or cancel any spending that has been approved by Congress. Just as the anti-impoundment law directs! ENFORCE IT!
November 10, 2025 at 4:23 AM
How can Dems accept ANYTHING without some tangible guarantee that tRump won’t redirect or cancel any spending that has been approved by Congress. Just as the anti-impoundment law directs! ENFORCE IT!
With no concrete gain in return. The previous offer, with a 1-year extension of the ACA subsidies, represents a MINIMUM. (It should ALSO be accompanied with language providing enforceable anti-impoundment and anti-rescission measures.) (2/3)
November 9, 2025 at 11:18 PM
With no concrete gain in return. The previous offer, with a 1-year extension of the ACA subsidies, represents a MINIMUM. (It should ALSO be accompanied with language providing enforceable anti-impoundment and anti-rescission measures.) (2/3)
My take from before the shutdown even started is that Democrats are misreading the negotiation.
It's the Republicans who need the subsidies not us.
So to me the subsidies are table stakes. Not even up for question.
My suggestion was anti-impoundment language To set up impeachment cases.
It's the Republicans who need the subsidies not us.
So to me the subsidies are table stakes. Not even up for question.
My suggestion was anti-impoundment language To set up impeachment cases.
November 9, 2025 at 8:47 PM
My take from before the shutdown even started is that Democrats are misreading the negotiation.
It's the Republicans who need the subsidies not us.
So to me the subsidies are table stakes. Not even up for question.
My suggestion was anti-impoundment language To set up impeachment cases.
It's the Republicans who need the subsidies not us.
So to me the subsidies are table stakes. Not even up for question.
My suggestion was anti-impoundment language To set up impeachment cases.
If the spending bills all go together in a minibus and there's anti impoundment/rescission language in there then I actually think it's a good deal. The "clean" CR is basically expired anyway so there's no ability to rugpull anymore
November 9, 2025 at 7:02 PM
If the spending bills all go together in a minibus and there's anti impoundment/rescission language in there then I actually think it's a good deal. The "clean" CR is basically expired anyway so there's no ability to rugpull anymore
If they got rescission/anti-impoundment language in there it'd be a victory even without the ACA stuff passing lol
November 9, 2025 at 3:51 AM
If they got rescission/anti-impoundment language in there it'd be a victory even without the ACA stuff passing lol
