Despite Trump’s spending freeze, federal workers’ legal duties are clear
Hundreds of thousands of federal employees faced an unprecedented dilemma this week. They had to choose between violating their legal obligations to distribute funds approved by Congress, or defying President Trump’s sweeping executive order to freeze federal grants and loans.
This wasn’t merely another Washington power struggle — it represented a potential constitutional crisis striking at the foundation of American governance.
The gravity of this situation stems from an Office of Management and Budget memo that tried (before its recission) to do far more than temporarily pause bureaucratic processes. It attempted to force career civil servants into an impossible position of choosing between a presidential directive and their sworn duty to uphold appropriations law.
The dilemma becomes clear when the order is examined through three critical lenses: Congress’s power of the purse, the legal framework protecting federal employees and the strict limits on presidential authority over executive agencies.
The constitutional framework could not be clearer. The Constitution’s Appropriations Clause explicitly vests Congress with exclusive power over federal spending, which Trump was seeking to freeze. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Train v. City of New York (1975) leaves no room for debate: Presidents cannot impound funds that Congress has designated for specific purposes.
The court’s ruling was not just about President Nixon’s specific actions. It established an enduring principle that presidents cannot unilaterally override congressional spending decisions enacted into law.
Congress further bolstered this principle when it passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law, a direct response to Nixon-era overreach, creates specific, mandatory procedures that the executive branch must follow when seeking to alter congressional spending directives. OMB's freeze order went against these requirements, placing federal employees that obey the order on a collision course with established law.
Legal protections for federal employees add another layer of argument against following the order. While the president heads the executive branch, federal employees aren’t his personal workforce. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the foundational Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 created a professional civil service deliberately insulated from political pressure. These aren’t mere guidelines — they’re legal frameworks that protect career civil servants who manage federal grants and loans from being forced to prioritize presidential preferences over statutory obligations.
The limits on presidential authority over executive agencies provide a third pillar of protection. Although Cabinet secretaries serve at the president’s pleasure, their authority over career employees is not unlimited. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 mandates specific processes for policy changes, preventing arbitrary actions — including sudden freezes of legally mandated funding. The Supreme Court reinforced these constraints in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), emphasizing that executive agencies must provide legitimate justifications for policy changes and adhere to established administrative procedures.
Recent jurisprudence strengthens these protections. The court’s decision in NLRB v. SW General, Inc. (2017) clarified that even political appointees’ authority has strict statutory boundaries. They cannot simply override congressional appropriations or compel career employees to violate appropriations law. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 further reinforces these limitations on executive authority.
The implications for federal employees are stark but clear: Those who distribute appropriated funds despite the freeze order are standing on firm legal ground. Conversely, employees who comply with the freeze risk violating the Antideficiency Act, which explicitly prohibits federal employees from modifying congressional spending directives — including by refusing to spend appropriated funds.
The Government Accountability Office’s 2020 decision about withholding security assistance from Ukraine reaffirms this analysis, holding that executive agencies must implement congressional funding decisions as written, regardless of presidential preferences. This isn’t just about legal technicalities — it’s about preserving the fundamental separation of powers that prevents any single branch from accumulating excessive control over federal resources.
For the thousands of career federal employees caught in this constitutional crossfire, the legal path forward is clear, even if politically treacherous: Execute Congress’s appropriations as legally required. Their fundamental obligation is to the Constitution and federal law, not to presidential orders that exceed constitutional bounds.
This attempted freeze of appropriated funds represented more than a legal crisis — it challenged the very principles that prevent autocratic control over federal resources. This is a stark reminder that our system’s checks and balances require constant vigilance, especially when faced with directives that challenge constitutional boundaries.
This situation places federal employees in an unenviable position, but the law provides clear direction. Federal workers should continue their statutory duties, knowing that decades of constitutional law, Supreme Court precedent and federal statutes stand firmly behind Congress’s power to direct federal spending. The preservation of our constitutional order demands nothing less.
Trump does have the ability to stop funding for the programs he no longer wants to fund. He simply needs to submit his budget for Fiscal Year 2026 without any of the funding he no longer wants. That is where his legitimate power lies.
The presidency is the most powerful position in the world. What makes it uniquely American and democratic is that the position is still subject to existing laws. It is important for our democracy to hold to that principle and direct each and every president to work within the framework and laws of his authority.
Cheryl Kelley is a retired federal employee and an adjunct fellow at the Pell Center at Salve Regina University. She is the author of “An Informed Citizenry: How the Modern Federal Government Operates.”
Topics
-
Federal Spending Freeze Threatens Ecosystems and Public Safety
A White House memo ordered a halt to federal assistance and a review to align spending with Donald Trump’s priorities. Many legal experts say the order is unconstitutional.Wired - 1d -
Is Trump’s ‘buyout offer’ a good deal for federal workers? Is it even legal?
There are some key questions employees should ask about the Trump administration’s deferred resignation offer. ‘Overall and generally speaking, no, I don’t see this a good deal,’ an attorney said.MarketWatch - 6h -
Examining the legality of Trump's buyout offer to federal workers
President Trump is offering around two million federal workers to resign and be paid through September. Some Democratic lawmakers are pushing back against the buyouts, claiming they aren't legal. ...CBS News - 23h -
White House revokes memo freezing federal aid. Trump will try to block spending in other ways.
Democrats said the move was an unconstitutional seizure of power over the federal budget and warned of disruptions in funding to local police, domestic violence shelters, food programs and more.MarketWatch - 1d -
White House rescinds spending freeze on federal loans and grants
Press secretary insists administration isn’t backing down on fight to curb what they consider government waste. US politics live – latest updates A US judge granted a restraining order to stop ...The Guardian - 1d -
Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts
The Constitution, federal law and court decisions make it clear: President Donald Trump's order to pause federal funding is against the law, legal experts tell ABC News.ABC News - 1d -
!['Just give [Trump] a little time': Republican senator reacts to federal spending freeze confusion](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit_1500w/mpx/2704722219/2025_01/1738101572102_now_mtp_full_justice_250128_1920x1080-j7ssr9.jpg)
'Just give [Trump] a little time': Republican senator reacts to federal spending freeze confusion
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W. Va.) tells NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Julie Tsirkin in an exclusive interview that he supports a broad freezing of funds for federal programs.NBC News - 2d -
Dem states signal imminent legal action against Trump administration over federal grant freeze
Several Democratic states have signaled imminent legal action to block a Trump administration order directing federal agencies to pause the disbursement of loans and grants while the government ...The Hill - 2d -
Democrats question legality of Trump freeze on federal grants
Democrats are sounding “extreme alarm” over a recent memo issued by the Trump administration directing federal agencies to temporarily pause disbursement of loans, grants and other financial ...The Hill - 2d
More from The Hill
-
Multiple groups call on Senate to reject Vought nomination
Multiple groups called on the Senate to reject President Trump’s pick for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, Russell Vought. In three separate letters, the Coalition for Sensible ...The Hill - 26m -
What we know about Army helicopter, regional plane crash
Welcome to The Hill's Defense & NatSec newsletter {beacon} Defense &National Security Defense &National Security The Big Story Investigations underway into military helicopter, plane crash A ...The Hill - 36m -
Kash Patel grilled on potential Trump pressure, past comments at contentious hearing
Kash Patel, President Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, was at the center of a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday, facing intense grilling from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee ...The Hill - 37m -
Nissan slimming down US production, offering buyouts
Japanese automaker Nissan is slimming down its production in the U.S. and offering buyouts to workers in a push to cut jobs after reporting losses during the last quarter. Nissan is offering ...The Hill - 56m -
Gloria Estefan to Congress: Support for women's homeless shelters 'a no-brainer'
She's used to belting out her hits, but now Gloria Estefan is using her voice in a different way on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to support legislation focused on homelessness and funding for ...The Hill - 59m
More in Politics
-
Multiple groups call on Senate to reject Vought nomination
Multiple groups called on the Senate to reject President Trump’s pick for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, Russell Vought. In three separate letters, the Coalition for Sensible ...The Hill - 26m -
What we know about Army helicopter, regional plane crash
Welcome to The Hill's Defense & NatSec newsletter {beacon} Defense &National Security Defense &National Security The Big Story Investigations underway into military helicopter, plane crash A ...The Hill - 36m -
Kash Patel grilled on potential Trump pressure, past comments at contentious hearing
Kash Patel, President Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, was at the center of a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday, facing intense grilling from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee ...The Hill - 37m -
Trump’s speculation on plane crash is ‘reckless,’ says Kansas lawmaker
Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) joins Meet the Press NOW to discuss her state's reaction to the collision of a military helicopter and a passenger jet that took off from Wichita, Kansas, and President ...NBC News - 52m -
Homeland Security Committee Chairman: 'NTSB will get to the bottom' of Potomac collision
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, joins Meet the Press NOW to discuss the federal investigations into the collision between a passenger jet and military ...NBC News - 53m