The Trump administration has dismissed a congressional watchdog’s finding that it illegally paused electric vehicle infrastructure funding, escalating a fight over who controls federal spending. The clash could trigger a constitutional showdown over presidential power and Congress’s role in appropriations.
Key Facts:
- The Trump administration delayed $5 billion in EV infrastructure grants authorized by the 2021 infrastructure law.
- GAO concluded the delay was an illegal impoundment under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.
- The White House instructed the Department of Transportation to ignore GAO’s findings.
- OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta accused GAO of being a partisan actor undermining lawful spending reforms.
- Trump’s team is also pursuing $9 billion in budget rescissions and exploring new methods to expire unspent funds.
The Rest of The Story:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found that the Trump administration illegally delayed electric vehicle infrastructure grants to states—funding that had been approved under President Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law.
The administration had paused the program in early February to review and possibly revise prior guidance around charging station spacing and equity benchmarks.
The White House responded forcefully.
In a memo, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Just so we are all clear over the next several months. The Government Accountability Office or GAO is a quasi-independent arm of the legislative branch that played a partisan role in the first-term impeachment hoax. They are going to call everything an impoundment because they… https://t.co/5HWCPnQZFY — Russ Vought (@russvought) May 23, 2025 ” target=”_blank”>instructed
This marks a deepening of the administration’s ongoing efforts to question the legitimacy and neutrality of oversight agencies like GAO and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Trump officials argue the delay is not an unlawful impoundment but part of a broader policy shift.
Just so we are all clear over the next several months. The Government Accountability Office or GAO is a quasi-independent arm of the legislative branch that played a partisan role in the first-term impeachment hoax. They are going to call everything an impoundment because they… https://t.co/5HWCPnQZFY
— Russ Vought (@russvought) May 23, 2025
They have also launched a $9 billion rescission package targeting various programs, such as foreign aid and public broadcasting, while testing aggressive new legal theories like the “pocket rescission” to limit federal spending without overt congressional rejection.
Commentary:
This conflict cuts to the core of America’s separation of powers.
Congress holds the power of the purse—it decides what money gets spent where.
But it’s the president who actually oversees how and when those funds are distributed.
The Impoundment Control Act was passed to prevent presidents from using policy disagreements as a reason to withhold funds.
But the law itself hasn’t faced serious constitutional challenge in decades.
Trump’s administration is asserting that it not only has the authority to reshape how money is spent but that oversight agencies like GAO should not interfere.
This could reshape how future presidents interpret their spending powers.
If GAO’s authority is ignored and executive discretion expands unchecked, then the boundary between congressional budgeting and presidential implementation gets blurrier.
It’s worth remembering the GAO doesn’t write laws or allocate funds—it simply ensures they’re followed.
But the Trump team sees it differently.
They argue that GAO has morphed into a partisan referee, blocking reforms that aim to rein in waste and shift priorities.
The accusation is not just that GAO made a wrong call—but that it is operating in bad faith.
This fight is bigger than one EV program.
If courts side with the administration, we could see a major shift in how executive power is used to shape federal budgets.
If they side with GAO, it may reinforce congressional supremacy over the purse.
Either way, it’s heading toward a legal showdown.
The Bottom Line:
The Trump administration’s rejection of GAO’s opinion on the electric vehicle funding delay is more than a bureaucratic spat—it’s a test of the constitutional balance of power over federal spending.
With lawsuits likely, courts may soon have to decide how much flexibility the executive branch really has when Congress writes the checks.
This case could redefine the limits of presidential authority in shaping budget policy.
Read Next
Dem Leader Jasmine Crockett Vows To Impeach Trump If Dems Win Back The House
Massive Oil Reserve Back in Play After Trump Lifts Biden Clampdown
Just Before the Boulder Terror Attack Colorado Dems Passed Law Shielding Criminal Illegals From ICE
California Caves on Green Big Rig Mandates After Court Battle