Welcome to an insightful conversation with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, currently at the helm of Government Curated. With decades of experience navigating the intricacies of federal budget policy and government oversight, Donald offers unparalleled expertise on the complex interplay between executive actions and congressional mandates. Today, we dive into the recent findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding agency layoffs, impoundments, and violations of federal spending laws under the Trump administration. Our discussion explores the legal boundaries of budget management, the significance of the Impoundment Control Act, and the ongoing tension between branches of government over fiscal authority.
Can you walk us through the GAO’s recent ruling on agency layoffs and whether they violate federal spending laws?
Well, the GAO recently clarified that layoffs at federal agencies, in and of themselves, don’t necessarily break spending laws like the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Specifically, they looked at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and found that mass layoffs in offices such as Civil Rights and Civil Liberties didn’t constitute an illegal impoundment. The key here is intent and execution—GAO has a long-standing precedent that a reduction in force for budgetary savings isn’t automatically unlawful, as long as any savings are offset by other allowable expenses within the same appropriated accounts. It’s about ensuring the agency continues to spend its full allocation as Congress intended.
What deeper insights can you share about how GAO defines an illegal impoundment in the context of layoffs and budget savings?
GAO’s definition hinges on whether an agency is deliberately withholding or pocketing funds that Congress appropriated. In the case of layoffs, if an agency cuts staff to save money but then doesn’t redirect those savings to other legitimate expenses within the same budget line, that could be seen as an impoundment. It’s essentially a refusal to spend as directed. For DHS, GAO noted that the agency claimed to be expending its full appropriation for the affected offices in fiscal 2025, which aligned with the documents they reviewed. But the watchdog couldn’t fully verify savings or employee status because DHS wasn’t fully cooperative.
How did the GAO’s findings specifically address the layoffs at DHS offices like the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?
The GAO focused on whether these specific layoffs at DHS violated the ICA. They concluded there was no violation because Congress had provided lump-sum appropriations for these offices without mandating specific staffing levels. This gave DHS flexibility to adjust its workforce without breaching spending directives. However, GAO couldn’t confirm if the layoffs actually resulted in savings or if affected employees were still on paid administrative leave, due to limited access to detailed information from DHS.
Can you elaborate on the challenges GAO faced in confirming details about the DHS layoffs and their impact?
Absolutely. GAO hit a wall because DHS declined to fully cooperate with the investigation. This lack of transparency meant GAO couldn’t definitively say whether the layoffs led to net savings or what the current status of the impacted employees was. It’s a reminder of how critical agency cooperation is for oversight bodies like GAO to do their job effectively. Without full access to data, their ability to draw concrete conclusions is hampered, which can leave important questions unanswered about the real fiscal and human impact of these decisions.
Shifting gears, how has the Trump administration responded to GAO’s broader findings on impoundments and spending laws?
The administration has been quite defiant. The White House has openly disputed GAO’s authority, arguing they’re not bound by the watchdog’s rulings or even Supreme Court precedent on these matters. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been particularly resistant, stating they’ll only cooperate with GAO investigations when it doesn’t interfere with President Trump’s agenda. OMB has called GAO’s numerous probes—around 50 at last count—overly burdensome and invasive, signaling a clear tension between executive priorities and legislative oversight.
Let’s talk about the Energy Department and the Renew America’s Schools program. What did GAO uncover there?
GAO found that the Energy Department violated the Impoundment Control Act by delaying disbursements for the Renew America’s Schools program, which was set up under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to fund energy upgrades for schools. The department had only obligated 17% of its fiscal 2025 appropriation for the program and hadn’t spent any of it. GAO determined this delay was driven by policy reasons—essentially, to align with the administration’s agenda—which is a clear violation of the ICA since it prohibits withholding funds for such purposes.
Can you explain the significance of the Impoundment Control Act and why it matters in these situations?
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is a cornerstone of congressional authority over federal spending. It was enacted to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally withholding or delaying funds that Congress has appropriated, ensuring that laws passed and signed are faithfully executed. In cases like the Energy Department’s actions, the ICA protects Congress’s power of the purse by holding agencies accountable. GAO’s role in enforcing this law is crucial for maintaining the balance between the executive and legislative branches, preventing any single branch from overstepping its constitutional bounds.
GAO has identified multiple instances of illegal impoundments under this administration. Can you shed light on the broader pattern here?
Indeed, GAO has now ruled on four instances of illegal impoundments since President Trump took office. Beyond DHS and the Energy Department, they’ve found violations at the Transportation Department, Health and Human Services, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. This pattern suggests a recurring strategy of delaying or withholding funds for policy reasons, which directly challenges congressional intent. It’s a significant oversight concern because it undermines the fundamental principle of checks and balances in federal budgeting.
What are your thoughts on the political reactions to these findings, such as Senator Patty Murray’s criticism of the administration’s handling of school funding?
Senator Murray’s response was sharp and pointed. As the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, she called out the withholding of funds for school energy upgrades as not just illegal, but also shortsighted and harmful. She argued that denying schools these resources, which could save them money in the long run, is a disservice to communities. Her frustration reflects a broader concern among some lawmakers that the administration is prioritizing political agendas over legal obligations and public good, especially on issues that directly impact education and infrastructure.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the ongoing tension between the administration and GAO over federal spending and impoundments?
I anticipate this friction will only intensify. The administration has already signaled plans to continue unwinding congressionally appropriated funding, with measures like clawing back billions in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, and hints at further rescissions. With OMB’s stance that they’ll resist GAO’s findings and ongoing reviews of funding, we’re likely to see more legal battles and oversight clashes. This could set a precedent for how future administrations handle congressional appropriations, potentially reshaping the balance of power over the federal purse for years to come.
