Average Americans can be forgiven for not understanding how Joe Biden was able to “forgive” student debt and stop Trump’s Border Wall construction without pushback from the media, Congress, or the courts, while Trump’s efforts to make government more efficient are being blocked at every turn.

Joe Biden got away with what he was doing because those institutions ignored a piece of anti-Nixon legislation. It is another case of “it’s okay when we do it, but illegal when anyone else—especially Donald Trump—tries to do the same thing.” The main driver behind this hypocritical approach is that congressional Democrats have been strong and Republicans weak (whether they’re the majority or not).

Almost all the current hand-wringing surrounding Trump’s efforts revolves around a law passed in 1974 to stymie President Nixon’s attempt to move federal monies around his Administrative Branch. The Impoundment and Control Act of 1974 was passed at the height of the Watergate debacle and was a calculated move by Congress to stop Nixon’s so-called Imperial Presidency. For those wanting to look at original sources and explanations, one can look here, here, and here.

Image by Fotor AI.

As written, the Act is a blocking law, not an enabling law—though there are procedures within the law that allow the president to engage in certain budgetary moves, the effort required is exceeded by any expected benefit.

Understood in its most basic terms, Congress says that if it voted to spend money on something, the president may not change that amount, even if he can achieve the exact same outcome by spending less money. To put it bluntly, the Act says that the president is not allowed to save the country money.

As a hypothetical example, assume that Congress has budgeted $1 billion to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. The President, however, finds a way to re-construct the bridge to the exact specifications laid out by Congress for $500 million, saving half the cost. Under the Act’s explicit terms, the president would be barred from this cost-saving approach. He must spend all $1 billion. If this has you scratching your head—well, welcome to the club.

If one parses through the F-Bombs Democrat Senate and congressional leaders are dropping in the almost daily series of staged spectacles, the crux of their arguments is that Donald Trump is breaking the law in his efforts to shrink some agencies, eliminate others, and stop overall wasteful spending.

However, here’s the good news: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has the power to enable all of Trump’s efficiencies to be made legal. However, it’s complicated.

The House can vote on each saving effort separately,

OR

President Trump can present a complete package to the House, with a Bill that would require an up or down vote—a sort of Omnibus Budget Savings Bill. (And doing this would get deep into the weeds of other legislation on the budgetary process requiring the approval of both the House and Senate.

Give those weeds, good luck with this approach because all those Congresscritters know that doing this would have an adverse effect on their personal pork projects. Everyone should remember that vast chunks of money fall off the back of the government’s wagon into the hands of cronies at every bump and turn. It isn’t just about agencies in Washington; it is also about what trickles down to the state level.

OR

Mike Johnson’s House could pass legislation ending the ICA of 1974 once and for all. New legislation could be passed, placing the President and Congress into a partnership to make the government more efficient and answerable to taxpayers. I’ve been told that a sudden snowfall in Death Valley is more likely.

I’m hopeful that Trump’s team has already discussed much of this with the congressional leadership in the series of meetings both before and after his inauguration as Trump shared his plans. However, neither party has leaked a peep about this so far, so it may just be one of my pipe dreams.

There is a way to get all of this done if only the herd of Republican cats in both the House and Senate develop the stones necessary. Sadly, while Washington DC is a city made of stone, stones among Republican members of Congress are exceedingly rare and exceedingly small.