Fact check: What are the key constitutional provisions that restrict presidential power during a government shutdown?

1. Why the Purse Strings Decide the Fight — Congress Holds the Financial Reins

The Constitution expressly vests Congress with the power of the purse, prohibiting money being drawn from the Treasury except as provided by law; this Appropriations Clause is the structural backbone that limits executive spending during a lapse in appropriations. Contemporary fact checks underline that this textual grant leaves the president without unilateral authority to authorize spending when Congress has not enacted appropriations, making the shutdown a dispute over which work is legally funded rather than a zone of presidential discretion ^{[2] [3]}. Recent commentary reiterates that constitutional design intentionally separates fiscal authority from executive control to prevent unilateral resource commitments ^[5].

2. The Antideficiency Act: Statutory Restraint with Real Consequences

Beyond the Constitution, the Antideficiency Act codifies the practical effect: federal agencies and the president may not obligate funds or enter contracts when there is no appropriation, and violations can carry criminal penalties and administrative sanctions. This statute transforms a constitutional principle into enforceable prohibitions, forcing agencies to curtail operations and place employees on furlough unless excepted by law for emergencies or the safety of life and property. Recent fact checks emphasize that the Act—not executive whim—dictates what officials may do during funding lapses ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Judicial Lines and the Limits of Emergency Power Claims

Recent legal scholarship and pending Supreme Court scrutiny stress that judges will not lightly bless sweeping presidential claims to spend or act outside appropriations. Key precedents like Youngstown and Nixon undergird a framework that distinguishes core executive functions from acts requiring legislative funding, and current cases this term are pushing judges to clarify those boundaries. Analysts warn that while the president may assert national-security or emergency rationales, courts will evaluate such claims against statutory text and separation-of-powers principles rather than deferring automatically ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Political Leverage versus Constitutional Authority — The Senate and House Roles

A shutdown produces political leverage for the president because of public pressure and operational disruption, but leverage is not the same as constitutional authority. Fact-check summaries make clear that the president can use public messaging, executive orders that do not spend money, and administrative reprioritization within lawful bounds, yet cannot lawfully bypass Congress to fund programs or create new entitlements. The constitutional setup anticipates negotiation and compromise, with Congress able to restore funding through continuing resolutions or appropriations bills that the president can sign or veto ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Operational Choices: What the Executive Can and Cannot Do on the Ground

In practice, agencies receive legal guidance during shutdowns on which functions continue—exceptions for national security, public health, and safety of life and property are narrowly defined—and officials must follow the Antideficiency Act’s prohibitions. The president can direct agencies to use previously appropriated balances, reallocate within statutory limits, or designate exceptions, but cannot lawfully commit new expenditures or create permanent obligations without congressional authorization. Recent analyses highlight these operational contours as the arena where legal limits meet managerial discretion ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Courts, Scholarship, and the Long-Term Trajectory of Executive Power

Scholars and courts are watching closely; recent originalist scholarship and pending Supreme Court cases will influence how strictly future presidents can press executive authority during fiscal standoffs. The evolving jurisprudence could either reaffirm firm legislative control of spending or carve narrower paths for executive action in narrowly defined emergencies, but current fact checks caution that nothing in existing constitutional or statutory law supports broad unilateral spending to end a shutdown. The timing of court decisions and academic arguments matters because they will set precedents for resolving similar conflicts going forward ^{[4] [6]}.

7. Bottom Line: Legal Constraints, Political Tools, and What Remains Unresolved

Established law and statute make clear that the president lacks constitutional power to fund federal operations without congressional appropriation; the Antideficiency Act enforces that rule. What remains contested in public discourse and the courts is the scope of exceptions, the extent to which national-security or emergency claims permit limited action, and how future Supreme Court rulings might recalibrate the balance. Recent pieces stress that while the president can exploit political and administrative tools during a shutdown, constitutional and statutory restraints persist as the definitive legal boundary ^{[1] [2] [5]}.