Introduction:
Trump shifts the balance of power and his methods raise deep constitutional concerns. Since his time in office, the former U.S. president has pushed the boundaries of executive authority, targeting one of the most fundamental powers granted to Congress: the federal budget. Traditionally, only Congress holds the right to allocate or withdraw funds, a principle known as the Power of the Purse. This budgetary control serves as a vital check on the executive branch.
However, Trump’s presidency saw a remarkable and unprecedented shift. He became the first president in over three decades to cancel or redirect already-approved bipartisan funds without congressional consent. By challenging established financial norms, he directly tested the limits of the separation of powers. These actions did not occur in isolation but as part of a broader pattern to concentrate more influence in the executive branch. As a result, constitutional scholars, judges, and lawmakers across party lines began raising alarms.
This blog explores how Trump has reshaped institutional dynamics in Washington and why this matters not only for American democracy but also for international legal observers and practitioners.
Trump Shifts the Balance of Power by Challenging Budget Authority:
The Power of the Purse is a foundational concept in the U.S. Constitution. It grants Congress exclusive authority over federal spending. This principle ensures a clear separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and serves as a safeguard against overreach. Donald Trump, however, has significantly undermined this balance.
During his presidency, Trump was able to halt or redirect congressional appropriations — something no president had achieved in over 30 years. One high-profile example was his decision to divert humanitarian aid funds to finance the border wall with Mexico. In another controversial move, he delayed military assistance to Ukraine, despite it having been approved by Congress.
These actions were taken without congressional consent, effectively overriding legislative decisions. This raises serious constitutional questions, as no president is supposed to wield unilateral control over federal funds. The Supreme Court was drawn into several disputes, and even conservative justices expressed concern over the implications for constitutional checks and balances.
Political Consequences and What Lies Ahead:
This shift in power dynamics has far-reaching consequences for the U.S. political system. If a president can freely redirect or cancel funds after they’ve been approved, congressional authority is eroded. Over time, this could establish a precedent that weakens the legislative branch and empowers future presidents beyond constitutional intent.
Public trust in democratic institutions also suffers. The U.S. political climate is already marked by deep polarization, and power grabs by the executive only worsen the divide. If Trump’s actions are normalized, future administrations may feel emboldened to bypass congressional approval entirely.
Addressing this trend requires legal reforms and clearer institutional boundaries. Constitutional scholars are urging renewed protections for congressional control over the budget. Greater transparency and judicial oversight may also be needed to prevent further erosion of democratic safeguards.
Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s interventions in budget matters represent a critical juncture for U.S. democracy. The balance of power between Congress and the presidency is shifting and the implications extend far beyond national borders.
In an increasingly complex legal environment, cross-border guidance is essential. DR. EBNER and LANA AP.MA provide experienced, international legal counsel without the need to rely on foreign law firms. Their trusted team offers reliable support in navigating shifting legal landscapes and helps clients maintain clarity and confidence in cross-border legal matters.
