One thing is certain: Impoundment isn’t new. But before we get into its history and potential importance to our government’s budgetary management, let’s consider some of its recent indisputable impacts and the reactions to them. “Your Local Epidemiologist” Dr. Katelyn Jetelina posted this in March in response to the impoundment of funds for public health agencies, organizations, and programs:
There was an abrupt $11B cut to local and state public health (PH) infrastructure yesterday. I don't think people realize what this means:
- Want an updated system to check your immunizations instead of digging through documents? PH no longer able to carry out upgrades to immunization information systems
- Want your mayor to save money by addressing the opioid epidemic? PH no longer able to carry out upgrades to disease surveillance and reporting
- Want to know your blood test results faster? PH no longer able to carry out major laboratory renovations and modernization.
- Want to know if and how measles is spreading to protect your family? PH no longer able to perform wastewater testing
- Want your grandma in a nursing home to live a long, prosperous life? PH has to discontinue infection control education for nursing homes.
The broad media narrative is that these rescissions are about Covid-19 tests and vaccines. That’s just wrong. This money is indeed being used for Covid-19 — used to address key vulnerabilities identified during the pandemic.
But PH is inherently crosscutting. Capacity in one area strengthens capacity across the board.
This is just the latest in a long pattern, including sidelining scientific advancements, cutting USDA programs that support healthy eating, canceling global cooperation so we are safer in the U.S., and abruptly [reducing] future cohorts of public servants.
This is not America First.
In addition, the number of new grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) since President Donald Trump took office has been cut almost in half, as reported in the journal Science. From January 21 to March 27, the National Science Foundation made 919 new awards, compared with 1,707 awards issued over the same time period in 2024, according to the journal. Grants issued under Trump 2.0 totaled $312 million, versus $761 million in the same two months in 2024. Declines were particularly steep for education, engineering, and computing sciences. For example, only 12 new awards were made for education under Trump, compared with 120 in the same period last year.
There’s also a new wrinkle in the research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), arguably the world’s foremost basic research organization. After a two-month hiatus, NIH plans to resume posting notices of new solicitations for grant proposals. But, as Science reported,
there’s a catch: NIH’s parent federal agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and a more recent White House creation, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), will review each draft notice to ensure the research that will be funded aligns with the priorities of President Donald Trump’s administration…
Those are just a tiny sample of the impacts on U.S. research and public health, and the research community is rattled. On March 31st, about 1,900 leading American scientists, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, issued a stark warning that the U.S. lead in science is being "decimated" by the Trump administration's cuts to research and a growing "climate of fear" that jeopardizes independent research:
The administration is slashing funding for scientific agencies, terminating grants to scientists, defunding their laboratories, and hampering international scientific collaboration. The funding cuts are forcing institutions to pause research (including studies of new disease treatments), dismiss faculty, and stop enrolling graduate students—the pipeline for the next generation’s scientists.
The history of Impoundment
Previous U.S. presidents exercised impoundment as a matter of course, although never to such radical effect as currently. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower all impounded funds when they deemed it appropriate. Even Thomas Jefferson employed the practice. Richard Nixon’s aggressive impoundment prompted Congress to pass the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, stripping the executive branch of much of this authority. Further complicating the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York (1975) that the impoundment power cannot be used to frustrate the will of Congress.
The Act created the procedural structure by which the executive reports impoundments, Congress considers and reviews impoundments, and approvals or disapprovals are issued. It will be interesting to see whether the federal courts feel that the Trump administration’s cuts are consistent with those processes and with the Train v. City of New York decision.
A Tool of Fiscal Responsibility?
Unfortunately, we are now faced with record deficits and ballooning debt, so arguably it is time to reconsider impoundment. After all, in nearly every other sector — business, state governments, even household budgets — spending below an allocated amount is seen as responsible stewardship, not a radical act. This applies to both Chief Executives and further down the chain of management.
Supporters of reviving impoundment point out that in the private sector, unnecessary or wasteful spending will often lead to changes in management. Although “firing” a President, Governor or agency head is not so easy to accomplish, political accountability remains the primary tenet of government. That this could be insufficient is a risk as old as government itself.
Mitch Daniels, who was known as “The Blade” for his cost-cutting as head of George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, offers a compelling example. As Governor of Indiana, he aggressively “allotment” (impoundment by another name) to keep Indiana’s budget balanced. This authority was tied to changing circumstances and program effectiveness, and ultimately Daniels was able to restore the state’s financial health and secured a coveted AAA credit rating.
Interestingly, he points out that many legislators who decry impoundment in principle might find it politically convenient in practice. A legislator can publicly support high spending levels to satisfy interest groups while relying on the executive branch to make the necessary cuts: a political win-win.
The Opposition’s Case
Critics of impoundment, particularly congressional Democrats, argue that it dilutes the the constitutional “power of the purse" delegated to Congress. They fear that presidents could refuse to fund programs they politically oppose while funneling money toward their own priorities. Furthermore, they argue, impoundment could create uncertainty and instability, particularly in areas like infrastructure, healthcare, basic research, and social services, where predictable funding is critical. Certainly, recklessly wielding use of impoundment could validate these fears, as exemplified by the remonstrations of the research community cited above.
A Possible Middle Ground?
Governor Daniels proposed adjustments that could make impoundment more palatable and workable. One was to allow Congress to specifically veto any impoundment. Another was a trial period, allowing lawmakers to assess impoundment before deciding whether to extend it. Other alternatives could include authorizing impoundment for a limited period – for example, until a defined goal such as a deficit reaching a specified limit was achieved -- or explicitly exempting certain limited spending categories.
The Critical Question: Can Government Afford to Ignore Waste?
At the heart of the impoundment debate is a broader question: How can any Congress be highly specific about how to spend a budget of $6.7 trillion? Vast sums are allotted to governmental agencies with very limited visibility into how well it will be spent, and too much of it ends up being sent on to non-governmental entities. Only the most senior officials at agencies or departments are likely to fully understand how well their budgets and expenditures are suited to their mission. Determining this balance is, by definition, an executive function. The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the challenges to today’s congressional role in exercising the power of the purse.
Whether or not impoundment continues its comeback, one thing is clear: Ignoring the issue of runaway government spending that results from political horse-trading to fund pet projects is not sustainable. Limits on spending must be delegated closer to beneficiaries of the funding, and impoundment seems the only viable solution. However, it must be done judiciously, and by people who understand its impacts.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. Andrew I. Fillat spent his career in technology venture capital and information technology companies. He is also the co-inventor of relational databases. They were undergraduates together at M.I.T.
Henry I. Miller, MS, MD
Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. His research focuses on public policy toward science, technology, and medicine, encompassing a number of areas, including pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering, models for regulatory reform, precision medicine, and the emergence of new viral diseases. Dr. Miller served for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a number of posts, including as the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology.
