Another government shutdown grips Washington, a familiar spectacle of political failure. Yet beneath the surface of closed parks and delayed services, something unprecedented and constitutionally dangerous is unfolding. The executive branch, under the direction of the President’s budget chief, is attempting to bypass the crisis altogether, using “creative” accounting that appears to be a direct assault on the rule of law and the very power of Congress’s purse.

This is not a story about clever budgeting. It is a story about the potential collapse of the separation of powers, a moment where the White House seems determined to treat the U.S. Treasury not as a public trust governed by law, but as its own private ATM.

Is the Shutdown Playbook Being Rewritten?

In past shutdowns, the rules were clear: without funding from Congress, “non-essential” federal workers are furloughed, and agency spending stops. But the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), led by Director Russell Vought, is charting a different course.

Vought has publicly declared the administration’s priorities: “Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs [layoffs], and wait.” To achieve this, OMB has directed agencies to shuffle funds in highly questionable ways – transferring tariff revenue to fund the WIC nutrition program, raiding Pentagon research funds to cover military paychecks, and somehow finding money to pay FBI agents while most other federal workers go without.

Does the President Have the Power to Spend Money Congress Didn’t Approve?

The entire scheme appears to collide head-on with one of the Constitution’s most explicit commands. Article I, Section 9 – the Appropriations Clause – states unequivocally:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

To enforce this, Congress passed the Antideficiency Act (ADA) back in 1870. This law makes it a criminal offense for federal officials to spend or obligate money that Congress has not appropriated. Vought’s maneuvers – transferring funds explicitly designated for one purpose (like R&D) to another (like military pay) without clear legal authority – seem to be a flagrant violation of this bedrock statute.

Is Tariff Revenue a Secret Slush Fund?

The administration’s attempt to use tariff revenue to fund programs like WIC is particularly constitutionally suspect. Generally, tariff money, like income tax revenue, goes into the Treasury’s general fund and cannot be spent without a specific appropriation from Congress.

While OMB may have unearthed a potential loophole in an obscure 1935 agricultural law, legal experts are deeply skeptical. Using a Great Depression-era law intended to help struggling farmers as a justification to fund a modern nutrition program during a shutdown is a legal stretch that seems designed to break under judicial scrutiny.

Why Isn’t Congress Fighting Back?

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this constitutional crisis is the apparent acquiescence of Congress. Instead of fiercely defending its own institutional power, Republican leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune seem content to let the administration push the legal boundaries, focusing their public criticism solely on the Democrats blocking a funding deal.

This suggests a dangerous calculation. The White House appears to be betting that the political optics of suing to stop the military or FBI from getting paid, or to cut off funding for mothers and infants, are so toxic that no one will dare challenge their potentially illegal actions in court.

This is a profound and perilous moment for the republic. The power of the purse is Congress’s ultimate check on the executive branch. When the President’s budget chief openly flouts the laws designed to protect that power, and Congress fails to defend its own authority, the separation of powers begins to crumble. We are witnessing not just a government shutdown, but a potential constitutional heist, conducted in plain sight.