President Donald Trump’s renewed bid to cancel billions in federal spending during the ongoing government shutdown is testing one of the core principles of

American democracy: Congress’ constitutional control over the federal purse.

The administration has already frozen or attempted to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in previously approved spending — a campaign that has triggered more than 150 lawsuits from states, cities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups. Most accuse the White House of unlawfully expanding executive power.

An Associated Press analysis finds that courts have mostly sided against the administration so far. Judges have temporarily blocked Trump’s budget maneuvers in 66 of 152 spending-related lawsuits. The administration has prevailed in 37 cases, while 26 remain undecided and the rest have been dismissed or consolidated.

Still, the fight is far from over. With the Supreme Court showing some sympathy toward the administration in recent emergency rulings, the nation’s highest court could ultimately determine how far presidents can go in redirecting or withholding congressionally approved funds.

Courts Push Back, but the White House Persists

The flurry of litigation highlights a clash between the executive and legislative branches, compounded by Congress’ reluctance to challenge the president directly.

“Congress seems to be following its partisan interests more than its institutional interests, and that puts a lot of pressure on the courts,” said Zachary Price, a constitutional law professor at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco.

Democrats on Capitol Hill estimate that the Trump administration has already frozen, canceled, or sought to block roughly $410 billion in federal spending — about 6% of the most recent federal budget. The White House disputes that figure and has sought to expand cuts since the shutdown began, targeting programs largely in Democratic-led states and cities.

A Nixon-Era Playbook Revisited

Legal scholars say no president has attempted such sweeping unilateral spending cuts since Richard Nixon. Trump officials argue they are working to eliminate “woke, weaponized, and wasteful” programs and restore fiscal discipline.

“The power they’ve claimed is the power to delay and withhold funds throughout the year without input from Congress,” said Cerin Lindgrensavage of Protect Democracy, which is involved in several lawsuits against the administration. “That’s a theft of Congress’ power of the purse.”

White House Budget Director Russ Vought, a chief architect of the strategy, insists presidents have long had authority to spend less than Congress allocates. Appearing on “The Charlie Kirk Show” earlier this month, he said the shutdown offered “a new opportunity to downsize” government spending and pursue a balanced budget.

Cuts Touch Every Corner of Government

The administration’s funding decisions have closed agencies, canceled grants, and attached new ideological conditions to federal aid. Programs affected range from education and public health to infrastructure, disaster relief, and foreign assistance.

Courts have ordered the restoration of nearly $2 billion for electric vehicle charging projects in 14 states and blocked efforts to strip funding from major “sanctuary” cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Judges have frequently found that the administration’s actions violated both the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies implement policies.

The Supreme Court’s Conservative Tilt

Trump has fared better before the Supreme Court, which has allowed the administration to move forward temporarily with several high-profile cuts — including plans to shutter the Department of Education, freeze $5 billion in foreign aid, and eliminate hundreds of millions in grants for teacher training and scientific research.

In one August decision, the court ruled 5–4 that plaintiffs challenging canceled research grants must pursue monetary claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than in district courts, potentially forcing some lawsuits to restart.

A subsequent 6–3 decision in September suggested that private groups cannot sue under the Impoundment Control Act over “pocket rescissions,” when a president submits last-minute requests not to spend funds and Congress runs out of time to act.

That ruling followed Trump’s August move to cancel $5 billion in foreign aid via a pocket rescission—effectively bypassing Congress. Though the decision was preliminary, experts say it could embolden the administration to use the same tactic again.

A Constitutional Showdown in Progress

For now, the legal and political standoff underscores a fundamental question: who controls federal spending — Congress or the president?

With the government shutdown stretching into its fourth week and billions of dollars in limbo, the courts may soon have to decide just how far executive power extends in America’s balance of government. Photo by Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia commons.