How Presidential Discretion Undermines Congressional Power of the Purse

The power of the purse, or the constitutional authority of Congress to control public spending, is often viewed as the ultimate check on the executive branch. However, new research suggests this power is more of an ideal than a reality. By analyzing federal budget outlays, Ph.D. candidate Kevin Angell shows that presidents exert systematic influence over spending long after Congress passes an appropriations bill. This is not a recent anomaly of the Trump era but a persistent, quiet feature of the executive branch. For policy observers and strategists, this reveals a hidden dynamic: the law on the books and the actual equilibrium of power in Washington are different things. Understanding this gap is necessary for anyone trying to predict how federal policy will be implemented, regardless of what is written in the budget.

The Hidden Mechanism of Underspending

Conventional wisdom holds that Congress dictates spending and the executive branch carries it out. Angell’s research challenges this by showing that presidents frequently use their discretion to underspend appropriated funds. This is not a random occurrence; it is a calculated, systematic behavior.

When a president wants to spend less than what Congress authorized, they are effective, influencing outcomes by about 39 cents for every dollar of desired reduction. This creates a shadow budget process where the executive branch overrides legislative intent without technically violating the law.

"Everything in the end is about making decisions and trade-offs and the like, and I think this is no different than that."

-- Ethan Buenard

This suggests that the power of the purse is not a binary switch held by Congress, but a negotiation where the executive branch holds a significant, if secondary, hand. The system responds to presidential preferences by using administrative burdens, such as adjusting paperwork or eligibility criteria, to slow the flow of money.

Why the Overspending Check Fails

There is a sharp difference between underspending and overspending. While presidents can easily steer agencies to spend less, they struggle to force them to spend more. This is due to the legal framework of federal finance.

Overspending is governed by the Anti-Deficiency Act, which carries the threat of criminal penalties and administrative discharge. Agencies are built to avoid these alarm bells. Conversely, the Impoundment Control Act, which governs underspending, lacks meaningful enforcement. There are no criminal penalties, and the threat of administrative sanction is remote. Consequently, the system creates a path of least resistance: agencies are wary of overspending but can quietly underspend with near-total impunity.

"It appears that outlays are being influenced by presidents through the implementation process. And this amount is pretty significant, so on average overall to the tune of about $0.39 per dollar."

-- Kevin Angell

This creates a lasting advantage for presidents who prioritize a smaller government footprint, as they can achieve their goals through administrative friction rather than legislative debate.

The Illusion of Transparency

The most non-obvious implication of this research is the role of blatantness. Historically, presidential influence over spending was done quietly. By avoiding public directives, presidents maintained plausible deniability, preventing the GAO from classifying their actions as illegal impoundments.

The Trump administration’s shift toward open declarations about freezing funds may have made the executive branch less effective in the long run. By moving the process from the shadows into the light, they invited litigation and scrutiny that the quiet underspending of previous administrations avoided.

"Previously, the kind of rule of thumb was that if you wanted spending to be influenced downward, you could do it but you couldn't talk about it because if you talked about it that gave the GAO a clear ability to say look, this is in response to a presidential directive."

-- Kevin Angell

This reveals a counter-intuitive dynamic: in the current system, the most effective way to exert power is to remain invisible. When a policy goal becomes a public battle, the system’s legal and bureaucratic defenses are triggered, often neutralizing the influence the executive sought to exert.

Key Action Items

• Audit Agency Implementation: For those tracking policy outcomes, ignore the enacted budget and focus on agency-level apportionment data. This is where the actual spending decisions are made. (Immediate)
• Monitor Administrative Hurdles: If an agency is failing to meet spending targets, look for changes in eligibility criteria or documentation requirements. This is the primary lever for executive-led underspending. (Ongoing)
• Factor Shadow Constraints into Projections: When modeling the impact of new legislation, discount the projected spending by 30 to 40 percent if the executive branch has signaled a preference for lower funding. This accounts for the systemic leakage documented in the research. (Next 12-18 months)
• Shift Focus from Legislation to Appointments: Presidential influence is highest in agencies with high concentrations of political appointees. Track appointment velocity as a leading indicator of an administration's ability to successfully steer spending. (Next 6-12 months)
• Advocate for Statutory Clarity: The ambiguity between programmatic deferrals and impoundments is the primary source of the current power imbalance. Pushing for a clear legal definition of these terms in statute would force this shadow process into the open. (18+ months)