Why Congress Always Spends More—and Why It’s Time to Rein in the Spending Clause

Have you ever wondered why Congress seems incapable of doing anything except spend more money? It’s not an accident. In fact, it’s a direct result of how our federal budget process incentivizes corruption, dealmaking, and constitutional evasion.

Here’s how it works: Congress controls the federal purse. But individual members don’t represent the country—they represent districts. So, if a representative wants to bring home pork to their constituents—a bridge, a grant, a flashy program—they’ll only vote for a bill that includes those sweeteners. Multiply that demand by 535, and you can’t pass any legislation without greasing everyone’s palm.

And the president? If he wants a bill passed—on immigration, energy, healthcare—he’s forced to swallow the pork. Whether he likes it or not. Otherwise, his whole agenda dies on the vine. So he signs. Every time.

People unfamiliar with our system—especially those from nations with a parliamentary system, which operates differently—might be surprised that Congress can essentially extort the executive branch into disbursing funds for pet projects. But our Constitution doesn’t actually permit this. In fact, it was designed to stop it.

The Founders created a federal system with checks and balances. Among them: the President’s duty to ensure that spending complies with the Constitution. That’s not just a suggestion—it’s an affirmative obligation, rooted in Article II, Section 3. The President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” And that means not just statutes passed by Congress, but the Constitution itself—including the Spending Clause.

That’s why the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Dr. John Eastman filed an amicus brief in State of New York v. Trump, No. 25-1236, pending in the First Circuit. The brief makes a forceful case: the President must have the power to pause and review spending to ensure it meets constitutional requirements—chiefly, that it serves the general welfare of the United States. Not local interests. Not ideological factions. Not cronies.

In landmark decisions like United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Spending Clause imposes real, judicially enforceable limits. Congress cannot use appropriations to do whatever it wants, and the Executive Branch cannot be forced to carry out unconstitutional spending simply because Congress said so.

If we want to restore fiscal discipline—and constitutional governance—we must restore the President’s authority to reject unconstitutional expenditures. Otherwise, every budget will remain a Frankenstein’s monster of local giveaways, ideological subsidies, and backroom deals.

This case isn’t just about funding. It’s about whether the Constitution means what it says. It’s about whether we will continue down a path of endless, corrupt, unsustainable spending—or whether we’ll begin the long-overdue project of restoring the balance our Founders intended.

Read the full brief here, and join us in urging the court to restore the true meaning of the Spending Clause.

AMICUS.EASTMAN.06-05-2025.pdf

Download PDF • 319KB