In my Colonial America class, I give an example of a 16-year-old who gets a car from his parents for his birthday. He’s a good kid and now that he has transportation, his parents extend his curfew to midnight. Eventually, the kid realizes his parents are asleep when he gets in, and aren’t paying attention to when he gets home. After several months, the kid starts coming in at 1 or 2 a.m. without any parental recourse. After about a year, one night he walks in, flips on the light and sees his parents waiting on the couch. They ground him for his tardiness. The kid’s response is that it’s not fair; his parents had to know he was coming in late and yet, had not punished before now.
Who is right? The kid or the parents? In class, we normally conclude that there is fault on both sides. I explain that this is how our American Revolution began. For more than 100 years, the British government had left the colonies alone without enforcing rules. Smuggling and other acts became a way of life. Then one day, we walked in to find our parents (the king) upset because we broke the rules. Our moment getting caught was when, during the French and Indian War, the Crown sent troops and bureaucrats over who discovered we were not behaving properly. Our “That’s not fair” movement sparked the revolution.
This also applies to our political situation today. For more than 100 years, Congress has willingly allowed presidents to slowly strip away its power as it is easier to allow the president to work harder and take either all the credit or the blame. Congress never had to do anything controversial increasing their reelection chances. Common issues today would never have been turned over to the president in the 1800s. Our living room light came on when Trump and Musk began eliminating programs. Now, suddenly, Congress — at least the Democrats — care and are claiming it’s not fair. In essence, Trump is doing what other presidents have done while no one stopped them. He’s just taken the next step with DOGE. The problem is it may be too late to stop the trend.
Many question DOGE’s legality. Can the president create a new government agency? The answer: probably yes. But that’s because DOGE was not created by Trump alone. In 2014, after the Obamacare rollout, Obama created the United States Digital Service as a way of making all online services more efficient and staffed it with young Silicon Valley employees. Trump has taken that organization and renamed and rebranded it as DOGE. It’s not a new agency, just a new name. While this seems above water, the constitutional issue revolves around defunding organizations Congress had previously approved, like USAID (United States Agency for International Development). While many are excited about the cuts, Constitutionally, Congress controls the checkbook. Historically speaking, there have been instances where presidents have not used the money as it was intended. This is known as Impoundment, and was first used by Thomas Jefferson.
In 1803, Congress approved funds to purchase gunboats on the Mississippi River to possibly defend the nation’s right to use New Orleans. That same year, Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase included New Orleans, so he did not make the purchases as there was no longer a need. After that, presidents regularly used impoundments when they felt the government did not need to spend as much as Congress had approved on any project. Impoundments were common practice until Nixon’s presidency.
Nixon used impoundment so frequently that Congress felt that his withholding of approved program funds was the same as terminating programs. In 1972, when he vetoed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendment, Congress overrode his veto and passed the bill. Instead of allocating funds to the states under the program, Nixon impounded them. The City of New York sued Russell E. Train, an Environmental Protection Agency administrator, for the funds based on the grounds that the president had overstepped his authority. In 1975’s Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court agreed.
While the Court considered the case, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which allowed the president to rescind funds only if both branches of Congress agreed. Clinton tried to regain some control with the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, which allowed the president to cut congressional spending, but the Court found the law unconstitutional. Legally, it seems as if DOGE should have congressional permission to cut funding to government agencies. Yet, the cuts are still happening.
As I see it, even with laws limiting the executive branch’s power, the legislative branch will have to work together to enforce them. Recent history shows us that Democrats and Republicans usually don’t play well together and only seem concerned with presidential power when the other party’s president is in office. It also took more than a century for Congress to have its power stripped away, so it may take just as long to reclaim it.
Trump’s success is that elected officials have always claimed they want to fix wasteful spending, but no one has ever done anything. Watching the attacks on Trump, it is clear why. Everyone wants government spending controlled until it impacts their interests or their supporters’ interests. Too many have benefited for too long on government money. My issue is, even if we support the DOGE cuts, and there are many that I do, this is setting precedent that will also apply to future presidents with whom we may not agree.
While the courts will probably decide what is and is not legal with the DOGE cuts, no one can claim that Trump is afraid to do what he promised to do. Cutting government waste was what made him popular.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.
