Lawmakers and activists are preparing for the possibility that President Donald Trump's administration, in its zeal to slash the federal budget, will take the rare step of deliberately not spending all the money Congress gives it — a move sure to trigger legal and political battles.

The concern is mainly focused on the State Department, where Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has drawn criticism for failing to spend $80 million allocated by Congress to fight Russian and terrorist propaganda and for trying to freeze congressionally authorized fellowships for women and minorities. Activists and congressional officials fear such practices could take hold at other U.S. departments and agencies under Trump.


"We've seen just too many instances these past few months ... where there is clear congressional intent and funds provided, yet an unwillingness or inability to act," Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement to POLITICO.

Advocacy groups are consulting lawyers and gathering information on current spending and the laws that govern the budget; one nongovernmental-organization network is even surveying humanitarian organizations to gather more facts. Capitol Hill staffers are scouring the fine print of appropriations bills, hunting for loopholes that would allow the executive branch to slow down or stop spending.

The goal is to fend off cuts that they fear could damage foreign aid programs, hobble U.S. diplomacy and ultimately weaken America’s national security.

The issue could be a topic of debate at the upcoming confirmation hearing of Eric Ueland, a Trump nominee for a top State Department position. A former Republican Senate budget staffer, Ueland is hailed by conservatives and reviled by liberals for his budget wizardry.

Presidential administrations, even Republican ones that promote a small-government ideology, usually try to spend whatever money they get from Congress’ annual budget process. Federal managers sometimes find creative reasons to spend money to preserve their budgets for future years. Unspent funds revert to the U.S. Treasury.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development would be among the worst hit under Trump's fiscal 2018 budget, with a roughly one-third cut in their finances. But one Capitol Hill aide said questions about the Trump administration’s true spending goals have risen among activists who deal with a range of other U.S. departments and agencies, most of which face cuts of some kind under Trump's plans.

Lawmakers from both parties have declared the budget proposal “dead on arrival,” making it likely that Congress will budget billions more for some federal functions, like diplomacy and foreign aid, than Trump has requested.

Trump has already ordered executive branch agencies to submit plans to reorganize and streamline themselves, and he has limited federal hiring.

And in one sign of his mentality toward federal spending, Trump thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month for ordering the U.S. embassy in Moscow to cut its staff by hundreds of people, “because now we have a smaller payroll.” State Department officials were furious over Trump’s remarks, which he later said were sarcastic.

Of the 587 key federal jobs that require Senate confirmation, 364 still have no nominee, according to the Partnership for Public Service. That has raised speculation that Trump intends to leave numerous jobs unfilled indefinitely.

Foreign policy insiders say administration officials have given them the impression that Tillerson plans to restructure the State Department for at least a 30 percent budget cut, even though lawmakers insist that's not going to happen.

"We're talking to pro bono counsel about what is the state of the budget law and what are the possible gray areas," said an official from a top advocacy group that has been asking about Tillerson's plans.

InterAction, a Washington, D.C.-based alliance of NGOs that engage in foreign aid and development, sent out an online survey to many of its members to get a sense of the spending environment under Trump.

One question on the survey, seen by POLITICO, asks organizations whether the administration has been slow to disburse promised funding.

Another asks: "Have you been encouraged to either submit or not submit proposals prior to the end of the [U.S. government] fiscal year? If so, by whom? What rationale was given?"

InterAction officials declined to comment.

The State Department dismissed the concerns. The department and the U.S. Agency for International Development "will obligate funding appropriated by Congress consistent with applicable law, including the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,” a State Department official said.

The White House Office of Management and Budget denied that it is looking for ways to avoid spending appropriated funds. “We have, of course, apportioned funds to agencies as required by statute," said OMB spokesman John Czwartacki.

Any attempt by Trump officials to avoid spending money on ideological grounds would face legal roadblocks, budget experts note.

The 1974 law cited by the State Department official was enacted amid anger over President Richard Nixon's decision to not spend — or “impound” — billions of dollars appropriated by a Congress that Nixon blamed for deficits and inflation. Lawmakers saw a threat to their constitutional control of federal tax and spending policy.

The law allows the executive branch to request permission from Congress to not use certain funds. But it also says any such request must offer lawmakers a specific and pragmatic rationale for holding on to the money. A general claim that the administration wants to shrink spending won't pass muster, experts said.

The law does give an administration leeway to defer spending available funds, but for limited amounts of time, depending on the program. Some observers expect Trump officials to rely heavily on such deferrals.

Trump’s budget critics note that the law gives the U.S. comptroller general power to sue an administration for not spending funds without a legitimate reason, according to an analysis recently circulated among concerned NGOs.

Still, a president seeking to spend less will find plenty of room to maneuver in the language used in an authorization or appropriations bill, budget experts said. One Senate aide predicted that lawmakers will pay extra attention to whether a bill uses words such as "may," "should" or "shall" — each of which gives an administration different degrees of flexibility in terms of how money is spent.

The executive branch also "can slow walk things. It can propose reprogramming. It can propose all sorts of things it can do that won't provoke a legal crisis," the Senate aide added.

An administration keen on trimming the budget can find an advantage in delaying spending. "That makes it look like you have more than you need going into the next fiscal year. Then you can say 'We don't need as much,'" said Heather Higginbottom, a former deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

That would be a stark reversal for one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets: the rush by agencies to prove to Congress that they need every dime they’re given. “Use it or lose it” season has seen agencies spend huge amounts on everything from artwork to lavish conferences so that their budgets aren't trimmed the following year.

A spending fight would be a healthy way to force Congress and the administration to take a tougher look at how money is allocated, argued Brett Schaefer, an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. He defended the Trump administration’s overall aims, saying: "It's not about saving money — it's about whether the expenditure advances the priorities and interests of the United States in an effective way."

Trump's critics are especially wary given his decision to nominate Ueland as the next undersecretary of state for management, a job with significant sway over the State Department budget. The job is among a small handful at the department for which Trump has picked a nominee.

Ueland has served in a number of Senate staff roles, including as the Republican staff director of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. His knowledge of budget rules and procedure is considered formidable, and administration detractors suspect he's being brought in specifically to help financially gut the State Department in ways that pass legal scrutiny.

"He is stone-cold evil," said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Very few, if any, people know how to manipulate the budget rules for better or worse than Eric. If anyone's looking for him to do the right thing, you're looking at the wrong guy.”

Ueland declined to comment. A date for his confirmation hearing has not been announced.

Joel Charny, director of the Norwegian Refugee Council USA, said his organization has been trying with little luck to get answers from people inside the administration, especially those who work within the Population, Refugees and Migration bureau at the State Department and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID.

"We can't get to the bottom of it, and our colleagues in the U.S. government won't tell us if they're getting a specific instruction from the Office of Management and Budget to slow down the disbursements of money," Charny said. "My strong suspicion is that they are, but the evidence isn't entirely clear. They're just feeling so under the gun."

G. William Hoagland, a former longtime Senate budget aide, noted that the budget differences are pitting a GOP-controlled Congress against a Republican president.

If Trump really wants to trim back government spending, "his first line of attack is to make sure Congress doesn't appropriate the money if he doesn't like it," Hoagland said. "And if he thinks the appropriations bills are spending too much, he can veto them.”