States sue Trump over his commandeering of federal purse strings

The California attorney general called the president's move unconstitutional.OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — California and six other states sued President Donald Trump over what they call his “relentless campaign” to stop federal funding already approved by Congress because of policy disputes.The states say Trump revealed Sunday — days before the fiscal year ended — that he’d rescind $810 million in spending his administration determined didn’t help Americans. Additionally, hundreds of millions in other funds approved by Congress appeared unobligated as of the fiscal year’s end and could expire — money that could fund emergency services and education.California Attorney General Rob Bonta calls the funding block, known as impoundment, unconstitutional.“Impoundments are particularly pernicious where, as here, they involve an attempt by the executive branch to halt the obligation of certain funds until they expire at the end of the last day of the federal fiscal year: Sept. 30,” Bonta says in the suit. “The intended effect is that those unspent funds are made permanently unavailable to their intended recipients.”Bonta asks a federal judge to declare the impoundments unconstitutional, stop Trump and the Office of Management and Budget from implementing them and order them to properly disperse the funds.According to Bonta, Congress passed apportionment statutes that various federal agencies are then tasked to fulfill. There’s a deadline attached to funding apportionments — in this case Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.“Despite its legal obligation to spend funds in accordance with Congress’ directives, the president, through OMB and various agencies, has either refused to spend or failed to spend some of those mandated funds,” Bonta says.As spending actions are public, the impoundments are noted in Trump administration documentation. Bonta says public information shows Congress appropriated $379 million for innovation and improvement through the Department of Education and $576 million for injury prevention and control through Health and Human Services. However, as of August, the money remained unobligated.Bonta filed the suit Wednesday, the last day of the fiscal year. No public information at that time showed the plaintiffs would receive the unobligated funding before the deadline passed.“Without announcement, warning, or — critically — legal authority, the administration is ‘quietly’ impounding these funds, and likely others, by failing or refusing to obligate them prior to their statutory expiration on Sept. 30,” Bonta says.The out-loud reapportionments came Sunday, when Trump said he’d use a pocket rescission to cut $810 million in what he called wasteful and harmful spending that didn’t help Americans.Some $568 million would have funded refugee and entrant assistance, as well as programs that help unaccompanied child refugees and child victims of human trafficking.The rescission also affected about $25 million for programs to ensure the children of migratory farm workers receive the same education as other children.The Trump administration withheld another $28 million that would have funded health services research. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality would have used some of the money to conduct research about inner city and rural areas.“The administration requested that Congress eliminate healthcare research and quality funding for fiscal year 2026,” Bonta says. “Congress declined. For fiscal year 2027, the administration requested Congress eliminate the funding again. Congress has not done so, again.”Congress has the power of the purse, Bonta adds, and a president can’t repeal, alter or ignore its directives. Congress has exclusive power over spending, and a president must ensure that laws are faithfully executed.“When Congress wishes to give the executive branch discretion to spend less than the full amount appropriated, Congress is explicit — stating, for example, that an agency is appropriated ‘sums not exceeding’ or ‘up to’ a specific amount,” Bonta says. “Without such language, appropriations require the executive to spend the full amount of the appropriation.”The impoundments and rescissions harm the seven states who sued Trump, as they rely on the funding to provide essential services to the public, Bonta says.“I continue to be appalled by President Trump’s blatant disregard for the basic constitutional framework of our government,” Bonta said in a statement. “Just because the president doesn’t like a program doesn’t mean he can defund it.”The Office of Management and Budget couldn’t be reached for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads