A Constitutional Defense Amid the Education Funding Dispute

by Michael J Badagliacco, "MJB" - Editor-In-Chief

In July 2025, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general, joined by the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island against the Trump administration, challenging the withholding of approximately $7 billion in congressionally appropriated education funds. The lawsuit, led by Democratic attorneys general including New York’s Letitia James and California’s Rob Bonta, alleges that the administration’s freeze on these funds, intended for programs such as Title II-A (educator training), Title IV-B (after-school programs), Title III-A (English language acquisition), Title I-C (migrant education), and adult education, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s decision, announced on June 30, 2025, to place the funds under review for alignment with President Trump’s priorities, particularly to eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, disrupts school budgets and harms vulnerable students. They claim the freeze disregards Congress’s sole authority over appropriations under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and fails to follow the Impoundment Control Act’s procedures, which require the President to notify Congress of any deferral or rescission and release funds within 45 days unless Congress approves otherwise.

However, these accusations overlook a fundamental constitutional principle: the President’s authority under Article II to manage federal spending, including the power to impound funds, supersedes statutory restrictions that infringe on executive prerogatives. The Impoundment Control Act, enacted in response to President Nixon’s impoundments, is itself of questionable constitutionality, as it encroaches on the President’s role as the chief executor of the laws. This article argues that President Trump’s decision to withhold education funds, particularly those tied to DEI programs, is a lawful exercise of his Article II powers, and that laws claiming Congress has sole authority to direct appropriated funds are constitutionally unsound. Congress’s role is to appropriate funds, but their execution falls within the President’s domain.

Constitutional Basis for Presidential Impoundment

The U.S. Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers, vesting “the executive Power” in the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. This broad grant of authority includes discretion to manage federal operations, including how appropriated funds are spent. The Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3) mandates that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which implies flexibility to ensure appropriations are implemented efficiently and in alignment with national priorities. For instance, if a $1 billion appropriation can achieve its purpose for $750 million, the President should have the authority to withhold the excess to prevent waste, a principle historically exercised by presidents from Thomas Jefferson to John F. Kennedy.

Additionally, the President’s roles as Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1) and chief diplomat under the Reception Clause bolster impoundment authority in areas like defense and foreign policy. Historical examples, such as President Truman impounding funds for Air Force groups or Kennedy withholding $180 million for bombers, demonstrate impoundment’s role in ensuring fiscal efficiency and strategic alignment. In the context of the $7 billion education funding dispute, the Trump administration’s review of funds for DEI programs, viewed by the administration as promoting a “radical leftwing agenda,” reflects a similar exercise of executive discretion to align spending with policy priorities.

The Supreme Court has supported the principle that unconstitutional laws may be disregarded. In *Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham*, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), the Court held that individuals may ignore unconstitutional licensing laws and exercise their rights with impunity. More directly, the Office of Legal Counsel’s 1994 memorandum, *Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes*, asserts that the President is not obligated to enforce statutes he believes violate the Constitution. Legal scholar Saikrishna Prakash, in his article *The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws*, argues that the Constitution obliges the President to disregard such statutes, reinforcing the President’s role as the chief executor tasked with upholding constitutional fidelity.

The Impoundment Control Act: A Questionable Restriction

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. §§ 681-688) restricts the President’s ability to impound funds by requiring congressional notification and approval for deferrals or rescissions. The Act was a reaction to President Nixon’s extensive impoundments, which totaled $18 billion and targeted programs he deemed wasteful. However, the Act’s requirement that the President seek congressional permission for impoundments arguably infringes on Article II powers, shifting executive authority to the legislative branch and violating the separation of powers. Legal scholars like Mark Paoletta contend that the Act is unconstitutional because it micromanages the President’s execution of appropriated funds, a function inherently within the executive’s domain.

The current lawsuit highlights the Act’s application, with plaintiffs arguing that the administration failed to notify Congress promptly of the June 30, 2025, funding pause and did not specify a duration for the deferral, as required by the Act. Yet, the administration’s position, articulated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, challenges the Act’s constitutionality, asserting that the President has inherent authority to withhold funds to ensure they align with executive priorities, such as eliminating DEI initiatives deemed discriminatory. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the Act’s constitutionality, leaving room for the President to act on his interpretation of Article II. In *Train v. City of New York*, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), the Court addressed statutory interpretation under the Clean Water Act but did not resolve the broader constitutional question of impoundment authority, supporting the view that the issue remains open.

The Education Funding Dispute: DEI and Executive Discretion

The Trump administration’s decision to withhold $7 billion in education funds stems from a review to ensure compliance with the President’s priorities, specifically targeting DEI programs. The OMB has claimed that these programs have been “grossly misused” to promote a “radical leftwing agenda,” citing concerns about initiatives like scholarships for undocumented immigrants or teachings on LGBTQ topics. This aligns with earlier actions in April 2025, when the administration threatened to withhold funding from states refusing to end DEI practices, prompting a separate lawsuit by 19 states. The current lawsuit argues that the funding freeze, affecting programs like after-school care, English language instruction, and migrant education, violates Congress’s spending authority and causes immediate harm, including potential staff layoffs and program cancellations.

However, the President’s authority to review and redirect funds is grounded in his constitutional duty to execute laws faithfully. The administration’s scrutiny of DEI programs reflects a policy judgment that such initiatives may conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws, particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard*, 600 U.S. 181, reinforced limits on race-based programs, providing a legal basis for the administration’s position that certain DEI initiatives may be unlawful. By withholding funds pending review, the President is exercising his Article II discretion to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates, a prerogative not subject to congressional micromanagement.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Opponents, including the 22 state attorneys general, argue that Congress’s power of the purse under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, includes the authority to mandate how funds are spent. They cite *Train v. City of New York* to assert that the President must disburse funds as Congress directs. However, *Train* focused on statutory compliance, not the constitutional scope of impoundment, and does not preclude the President’s inherent authority to withhold funds for constitutional reasons. Similarly, *Clinton v. City of New York*, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), struck down the Line Item Veto Act for violating the Presentment Clause but distinguished it from traditional impoundment, noting the latter’s historical precedent and lack of statutory amendment. These cases do not negate the President’s Article II powers to manage spending.

The plaintiffs also claim the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706) by failing to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the funding review. Yet, the OMB’s stated rationale, ensuring funds do not support a “radical leftwing agenda,” constitutes a policy judgment within the executive’s discretion, particularly given the lack of a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the Impoundment Control Act’s constitutionality. The Act’s procedures, such as requiring a special message to Congress, are themselves questionable if the Act infringes on Article II, as argued by OMB Director Vought and supported by historical practice.

Fiscal Responsibility and Practical Implications

Restoring the President’s impoundment authority promotes fiscal responsibility, especially in the context of the $7 billion education funding dispute. The withheld funds, representing 14% of federal K-12 funding, support programs that states like California ($900 million), New York ($463 million), and Alabama ($100 million) rely on. However, if the President determines that portions of these funds are being misallocated to DEI initiatives that violate federal law, impoundment serves as a tool to redirect resources to more pressing needs or prevent waste. For example, historical impoundments by Jefferson and Kennedy saved millions by aligning spending with national priorities. In today’s era of rising deficits, this flexibility is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently.

The lawsuit’s claims of “dire” consequences, such as teacher layoffs or program cancellations, assume that all appropriated funds must be spent as Congress directs, ignoring the President’s role in evaluating their necessity and legality. The administration’s ongoing review, with no final decision to cancel funds, suggests a temporary deferral rather than a permanent rescission, further aligning with historical impoundment practices.

The Path Forward

The Impoundment Control Act represents a congressional overreach that disrupts the constitutional balance of powers. President Trump’s withholding of $7 billion in education funds, pending review for DEI compliance, is a lawful exercise of his Article II authority to manage federal spending. To resolve this dispute, the administration could challenge the Act’s constitutionality in court, seeking a Supreme Court ruling to clarify the President’s impoundment powers. Alternatively, Congress could repeal the Act, recognizing its hindrance to effective governance. Until such clarity is achieved, the President is within his rights to prioritize constitutional fidelity over statutory restrictions, ensuring that funds are spent in a manner consistent with his duty to faithfully execute the laws.

In conclusion, the lawsuit by 22 state attorneys general mischaracterizes the President’s actions as unlawful, ignoring the constitutional foundation of his impoundment authority. The Impoundment Control Act’s restrictions are an unconstitutional encroachment on Article II, and the President’s review of education funds to address DEI concerns is a legitimate exercise of executive discretion. By reaffirming the President’s constitutional role, the nation can restore the balance of powers envisioned by the framers, ensuring efficient and responsive governance.