The House has approved President Trump's request to claw back billions of dollars in funds already appropriated by Congress for things like foreign aid and public media, including money that supports this program.

That request now goes to the Senate, which will hold a hearing on it tomorrow.

We want to take this moment to explain this process and some of the arguments around it.

Here's Laar Barone Lopez.

So help me go. Congratulations.

Almost immediately after taking office for the second time, President Trump moved to slash

government spending. He halted almost all foreign aid, paused federal grants and loans,

and pulled money for everything from scientific research

to libraries.

A flurry of lawsuits followed, and many of the cuts are now paused.

But the moves have brought renewed attention to a critical question about the separation

of powers in the U.S. Can a president just refuse to spend money that has been appropriated

by Congress?

The Constitution clearly outlines that the power of the purse resides with Congress.

The executive branch is then tasked with the execution of those funds.

So it is legally mandated that executive branch agencies follow the laws as written by Congress to spend appropriated funds as intended.

But what happens when an administration doesn't like the way Congress has told it to spend money?

For a long time, this wasn't an issue.

There is a commonly cited example that dates back to the 1800s.

There was a lot of money appropriated for war with France that didn't end up needing to be spent,

so President Jefferson didn't spend it with the consent and understanding of Congress.

Through much of this country's history, this was worked out in more informal ways.

...