The power of the purse, like always.

Right, but if Congress allocates the money, and the executive won't spend it, then what?

Then we have rules against impoundment. That has yet to work its way through the courts; we'll see if those rules survive and have any teeth.

>...and the executive won't spend it, then what?

Strict reading of the Constitution, nothing. Our government was not set up to be efficient, more the opposite. The Founders were distrustful of government, especially a federal government over their states, so they set up a government that wasn't good at doing things.

Whether you and I still want that is a different question, but the ultimate legality of the congress not being able to compel the executive to take action seems pretty clear.

>rules against impoundment

this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do

>Strict reading of the Constitution, nothing. Our government was not set up to be efficient, more the opposite.

Thankfully, 200 years of judicial interpretation and precedent disagree with this conclusion.

And of course, America's job is not to move fast and break things. it's to be as safe and stable as possible.

>this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do

yup, like I said. Precedent on this has been proven wrong every time. That's exactly what the judicial branch should be doing.

> ... which again is not clear they have the authority to do

Those rules were passed in the 1970s. Has there been a Supreme Court decision on their validity? (Real question; I don't know.)

But if the president can decide to not spend the money, how does Congress have the power of the purse?

It only makes sense in the context of the government being designed to not do things. Congress has the power to not spend. It would appear it doesn't have the power to spend.

Your interpretation at this point makes no sense unless you really believe that somehow the Founding Fathers (after overthrowing a king) wanted to low key-install a king anyway. Even then, these are overly cynical interpretations with no real basis to back them up outside of nitpicking singular words from centuries ago.

We did a horrible job interpreting that for 250 years if true.

If congress has this power, how is the current executive accomplishing this?

I'm asking myself that as well. Even if Trump is convicted, JD Vance will still run some of their not-illegal-but-still-kinda-crazy plans. Is over half of congress really just okay with a President declaring himself King? It's a bit absurd.

Judicial branch is putting up a fight, though. But they are by design the slowest, most meticulate branch.