President Can Reduce Specific Spending

Summary#

This proposal would change the U.S. Constitution to let the President cut specific spending amounts in a bill when signing it. It is a limited “line-item veto” for appropriations (the dollars Congress sets aside for programs and projects). Congress could vote to undo any cut, but it would take a two‑thirds vote in both the House and Senate. The amendment would take effect only if approved by two‑thirds of Congress and then ratified by three‑fourths of state legislatures within seven years.

• The President could approve a bill but reduce one or more appropriations in it at the time of signing.
• Within 10 days, the President must notify the House and Senate of each reduction.
• Congress may vote to disapprove a reduction; if two‑thirds of each chamber agrees, the original funding level is restored.
• The power applies only to spending amounts. It does not let the President change policy language, add money, or raise/lower taxes.
• No change happens unless the amendment clears Congress and the states.

What it means for you#

• General public

  • No immediate change. This only takes effect if the amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by the states.
  • If adopted, future Presidents could trim specific spending items. This could lower total federal spending and deficits, depending on how often it is used.

• States, cities, schools, and nonprofits that receive federal grants

  • Final funding could be cut at the moment a bill is signed, even after Congress has passed it.
  • This may add uncertainty when planning budgets or projects until the President’s decisions are known.
  • Restoring cuts would require a two‑thirds vote in both chambers of Congress, which is a high bar.

• Federal agencies and workers

  • Agencies may need to adjust plans quickly if certain appropriations are reduced at signing.

• Contractors and local projects

  • Some projects funded in large spending bills could be scaled back or delayed if their appropriations are reduced.

• Taxpayers

  • Potential for slower growth in spending and deficits if Presidents use this tool to cut targeted items.

Expenses#

Estimated direct federal cost to implement: none; overall budget impact would depend on how a President uses the authority.

• No new program or funding is created by the amendment itself.
• If used, reductions could decrease federal outlays for specific items; the size of any savings is uncertain.
• Official fiscal estimate: No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Helps curb wasteful spending and earmarks by letting the President remove questionable items without vetoing whole bills.
• Encourages fiscal discipline and could reduce deficits without raising taxes.
• Improves accountability: the President must list cuts, and Congress can publicly vote to restore them.
• Makes a line‑item veto constitutional by putting it in the Constitution, rather than relying on a statute that courts could strike down.
• Still preserves a check: Congress can override the cuts with a two‑thirds vote in each chamber.

Opponents' View#

• Shifts too much budget power from Congress to the President, weakening Congress’s “power of the purse.”
• Risks political targeting of programs or districts the President disfavors.
• Could disrupt bipartisan deals that make large spending bills possible, increasing conflict and uncertainty.
• Creates planning risks for states, cities, schools, nonprofits, and contractors if funds are cut at the last minute.
• The two‑thirds threshold to restore funding is very high, making it hard to reverse cuts even for broadly supported items.