> This isn't in the presidential powers.
Yes it is! It is literally the first sentence of section 1 of Article II of the constitution!
Saying, "I don't like this therefore it's not in his power" is logically identical to seeing Congress pass a law that you don't like and saying, "this isn't in Congress' power"
The power of the purse was deliberately placed with Congress in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This isn't about liking or disliking powers, it's about maintaining the constitutional balance that protects everyone's rights.
Article II Section 1 establishes the presidency and electoral process, but the Take Care Clause in Section 3 actually requires the President to faithfully execute Congress's laws. This separation of powers exists specifically to prevent any branch from exercising unchecked authority over public funds.
Changing funding requires congressional action because that's a core protection built into our system. It's not an obstacle to be worked around, it's a fundamental safeguard of our constitutional republic.
This exact issue was settled after Nixon tried blocking environmental funds. The Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York (1975) that the executive branch cannot refuse to spend appropriated money. Congress then passed the Impoundment Control Act to make it crystal clear. The president must execute spending as directed by law. Creating new positions to block these payments is just impoundment with extra steps.
