With an Intel AI PC, AI assistance helps you save time.

With AI-powered text-to-image tools, you can unleash your creativity with fewer clicks,

or let AI draft your emails.

It's possible on an Intel AI PC.

Additional purchase may be required.

Learn more at intel.co.uk slash AIPC.

Hey folks, Rachel here.

Here's a recording of my latest cafe note, the President's impoundment Authority.

As always, please write to us with your thoughts and questions at letters atcafe.com.

Dear listener, in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy set out their plans for the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge.

Doge will be a newly created body in the Trump administration that is supposed to, in the words of Musk and Ramaswami, cut the federal government down to size.

The first order of business should be for one of them to fire the other,

because it would seem the model of inefficiency to have two people at the helm. One hopes another agenda item is to scrap Musk's plans to have Doge merchandising as part of the portfolio.

While neither of these are actual agenda items for Doge, one that is, raises a serious

constitutional question. In the op-ed, Musk and Ramoswamy argue that they will cut government

spending through executive action. One way to do that is by refusing to spend funds Congress has

authorized or what is known as impoundment.

Musk and Ramoswamy note that skeptics might question how much federal spending Doge can tame

through executive action alone, because of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which requires

the president to spend funds that Congress has mandated. The 1974 Act requires presidents to get new legislation passed if they want to reduce funding for a program and allows them to defer spending only within a single fiscal year under limited circumstances.

Musk and Ramoswamy note that, quote, Mr. Trump has previously suggested the statute is unconstitutional, end quote.

...