Using Money as a Political Weapon

Trump’s eagerness to use funding as leverage has only intensified since the federal shutdown began last week. After cutting down the government workforce through his Department of Government Efficiency in his second term, he warned Democrats he might order even more layoffs—despite the fact that previous shutdowns have never required mass firings.

On Tuesday, he pushed the threat further. When asked whether furloughed federal employees would be paid retroactively, Trump said, “It depends on who we’re talking about,” suggesting some government workers “don’t deserve to be taken care of.” Meanwhile, he promised full pay for military personnel—one of his strongest political support bases.

Over the weekend, Trump again used funding as a pressure tactic—this time against Democrats in Congress by threatening to withhold $18 billion already approved for major transportation projects in New York, including the expansion of the Second Avenue Subway and new Hudson River rail tunnels. Both top Democrats—Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer—represent New York. His administration also froze nearly $8 billion in climate-related funding for 16 states—mostly led by Democratic governors.

To justify this political targeting, the White House claims it is simply eliminating waste. “We’re looking at agencies that don’t align with the president’s values,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate distortion—of the Constitution: Congress controls federal spending, not the president.

Trump has repeatedly clashed with courts over attempts to freeze or redirect funding passed by Congress, including actions blocked by judges during his first days in office. At one point, a federal judge ruled the administration had tried “to wrest the power of the purse away” from Congress—something the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

Tariff Funds Aren’t a Piggy Bank Either

The administration’s latest move raises similar constitutional alarms. It recently announced plans to use money collected from Trump-era tariffs to fund a federal food assistance program for millions of women and children during the shutdown. But as budget experts pointed out, the issue isn’t a lack of funds—it’s that Congress never gave permission to spend them that way.

So far, Trump hasn’t followed through on threats to fire workers or pick and choose who gets back pay, but the threats alone offer insight into how he governs. Conflict isn’t a side effect of his leadership—it’s a strategy. Trump approaches politics the same way he approached business deals: as a confrontation to be won using whatever leverage he can find.

During his first impeachment, he infamously withheld congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden. That scandal revealed his willingness to use public funds as bargaining chips for personal political gain.

A History of Presidential Power Struggles Over Funding

Other presidents have used funding for political leverage—Franklin Roosevelt tied federal aid to his New Deal programs, and Barack Obama encouraged states to follow his education initiatives through conditional grants. But Trump has taken the practice to a new level, using money not just to promote policy goals, but to punish political enemy lists and reward allies.

The last president to so aggressively defy Congress over spending was Richard Nixon, who blocked billions in funding after his 1972 reelection. His actions led Congress to pass a law preventing presidents from impounding funds already approved by lawmakers.

Trump has suffered similar pushback—losing court battles and facing resistance from Congress. Still, as long as he views politics as a zero-sum game, he’s unlikely to stop treating federal money like a personal weapon—one he believes he’s entitled to use to get what he wants.