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........

© The Hill