Most Americans have suspected that the federal government is riddled with wasteful spending.

In the last few weeks, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has begun to pull back the curtain and expose the misuse of money. Examples include $32 million for a Civil Society Centre in Prague, $14 million for “improving public procurement” in Serbia, and $373 million for DEI training grants.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the early poster child for government waste, fraud and abuse. Some of its wacky spending includes $70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland, $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru, and $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala. Nearly all staff for the USAID were placed on administrative leave as the Trump administration ponders the future of the agency.

Considering that the federal government spent $1.8 trillion more than it took in last year, the waste of funds strikes working Americans as verging on criminality. At a minimum, it is gross negligence by our elected leaders.

President Donald Trump imposed a funding pause on all USAID money while his administration decided how to go forward. A federal judge, however, has ordered the president to temporarily lift the freeze on USAID spending.

So just how far can Trump go in righting the wrongs of Congress and prior administrations?

In constitutional parlance, Trump’s refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress is known as impoundment. Throughout American history, presidents have declined to spend appropriated funds. For example, in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson declined to spend $50,000 Congress had appropriated for gunboats in anticipation of a conflict with France. Jefferson’s negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase rendered military conflict unlikely, and Congress supported Jefferson’s impoundment decision.

During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt impounded millions in congressionally appropriated funds when addressing various economic dislocations tied to the Great Depression and the war.

Significant controversy over impoundment occurred during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, who impounded 17-20% of congressional appropriations. Nixon used impoundment to curtail domestic programs with which he disagreed.

Crippled by the Watergate scandal and just a month before resigning, Nixon signed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 into law. At base, the statute requires the president to report impoundments to Congress and to abide by a congressional decision on the matter. If Congress takes no action to review the impoundment, the president must spend the money.

The Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act. Advocates of executive power argue that the statute infringes upon the president’s inherent powers, while proponents of congressional power contend impoundment gives the executive an extra-constitutional veto on congressional actions.

How about the termination of federal agencies such as USAID?

While President John F. Kennedy established USAID through an executive order in 1961, Congress in 1998 designated USAID as an “independent establishment” outside of the State Department. Because of the congressional legislation, it is doubtful that Trump can abolish the entity.

Had Congress not acted in 1998 and USAID was still a creature of a JFK executive order, the situation would be different (but still subject to wrangling in the courts over whether the presidential decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act).

Americans cheering DOGE and Trump should focus their energy on Congress. For better or worse, the Constitution’s Article I vests “all legislative Powers herein granted . . . in a Congress of the United States.” The president cannot submit legislation to abolish USAID, but Congress can. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) has introduced a bill (H.R. 1123) to halt all taxpayer funding to USAID and to claw back funds not yet distributed.

In light of the DOGE discoveries and the anger of Americans at USAID’s malfeasance, if H.R. 1123 can’t pass with significant majorities in the House and Senate, there is no hope to ever Make America Great Again. H.R. 1123 presents Congress with, to borrow a phrase from Elon Musk, a fork in the road: continue to bankrupt the country by funding Guatemalan sex changes and other foolishness or take a stand for fiscal sanity.

Absent a concerted effort in Congress to act on DOGE findings, Trump’s impoundments and employee furloughs will be caught up in the federal courts for months or years. While law geeks drool over the thought of the Supreme Court hearing arguments on the Impoundment Control Act, in the meantime, waste, fraud and abuse will continue in a business-as-usual manner.

It’s time for the people supportive of DOGE to burn up the Capitol Hill switchboard.