The White House budget office has officially rejected the findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which stated that the Trump administration is violating the law by refusing to allocate funds as mandated by Congress.
On Thursday, the GAO released a report declaring that the Trump administration breached the Impoundment Control Act by blocking the allocation of $5 billion specifically designated for electric vehicle charging stations under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Act.
This decision has thrown numerous planned construction projects by states into disarray. The GAO emphasized that the Trump administration needed to utilize a defined rescissions process, requiring Congressional consent for any spending cuts, instead of enacting these cuts unilaterally.
In response to the GAO’s report, Trump’s budget director, Russ Vought, dismissed the investigation as inconsequential, referring to it as ‘rearview mirror stuff’ and labeling it a ‘non-event.’
Vought argued that the GAO is mischaracterizing their efforts to manage taxpayer funds effectively by labeling legitimate budgetary decisions as impoundments.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Transportation, a spokesperson clarified that the GAO report reflects a ‘complete misunderstanding of the law’ while confirming that the department is in the process of reviewing and enhancing the guidance on the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which they described as having encountered significant implementation challenges.
This ongoing dispute highlights the broader issue of government spending authority that has persisted since Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act in 1974, following funding conflicts with President Richard Nixon.
The act underscores Congress’s exclusive power over financial appropriations, demanding that presidents comply with expenditure directives issued by Congress.
Former President Trump has publicly expressed intentions to challenge this law, a position strongly supported by Vought, who has previously characterized the Impoundment Control Act as unconstitutional.
During Trump’s first term, similar funding disputes arose, notably surrounding the administration’s attempts to withhold financial aid from Ukraine, leading to significant political repercussions and, ultimately, Trump’s first impeachment.
As Trump gears up for a potential second term, the implications of this case could escalate to the Supreme Court, particularly as the legal community continues to scrutinize the boundaries of executive power regarding federal funding.
Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., serving as the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, firmly stated that Trump is in violation of the law by blocking these Congress-approved funds.
Murray pointedly remarked, ‘I don’t care about Russ Vought’s personal interpretation of our spending laws; the Constitution is clear, and President Trump simply does not have the power of the purse — Congress does.’
Further complicating the situation, the GAO is presently investigating 39 other potential instances of funding impoundment under the Trump administration.
According to the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, the head of the GAO is authorized to initiate legal action against the president should they determine a breach has occurred, although they have yet to indicate such intentions in this matter.
Moreover, numerous states have already initiated lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding the suspension of funds allocated for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
image source from：https://www.delawarepublic.org/npr-headlines/2025-05-23/the-white-house-rejects-a-watchdog-finding-that-its-breaking-the-law-over-halted-funds
