ArtII.S3.3.7 Impounding Appropriated Funds
constitution.congress.gov

...Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Take Care Clause has figured in debates between the political branches over the Executive Branch practice of impounding appropriated funds. No definition for this term exists in statute or in Supreme Court case law. One possible definition, though, describes Executive Branch action or inaction that results in a delay or refusal to spend appropriated funds, whether or not a statute authorizes the withholding.

It is difficult to state with certainty how frequently the Executive Branch has used impoundment. In perhaps the earliest example, President Thomas Jefferson delayed spending funds appropriated in 1803 for the purchase of gun boats, a response to international tensions concerning the port of New Orleans.1 After Congress made the funds available, the President negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, rendering the immediate use of the gun-boat appropriation "unnecessary."2 Presidents in the nineteenth3 and twentieth centuries4 similarly signaled a willingness to delay or withhold spending appropriated funds.

Impoundments usually proceeded on the view that an appropriation sets a ceiling on spending for a particular purpose but typically did not mandate that all such sums be spent.5 According to this view, if that purpose could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation's total amount, there would be no impediment in law to realizing savings.6 Impoundments were also justified on the ground that a statute, other than the appropriation itself, authorized the withholding.7

Executive impoundment reached its apex under President Richard Nixon, who employed impoundment more frequently than his predecessors.8 Often, his Administration justified impoundments by stating that different funding levels,9 or different funding models,10 were preferable to the ones that Congress had selected when it appropriated the funds. ...

CBS News poll -- Trump has positive approval amid "energetic" opening weeks; seen as doing what he promised
www.cbsnews.com

... With most describing him as "tough," "energetic," "focused" and "effective" -- and as doing what he'd promised during his campaign -- President Trump has started his term with net positive marks from Americans overall.

Many say he's doing more than they expected -- and of those who say this, most like what they see. Very few think he's doing less. ...