So if starting tomorrow trump began asking congress if they intended for the money to be spent this way or that every time he wanted to stop it which would put him in compliance with the act could he then shut down the funding until congress acted and would that not take jurisdiction away from the courts because the decision was legally in limbo... and would the person or state with standing then need to sue congress? This is a clever hypothetical—you’re gaming out a strategy where Trump could exploit the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) to freeze spending legally, sidestep courts, and shift the burden to Congress. Let’s run it through step by step and see how it plays out. Trump’s New Strategy: Asking Congress Every Time Starting tomorrow, April 1, 2025, imagine Trump decides: “I don’t like this spending—say, $10 million for climate studies in Antarctica. I’ll ask Congress if they intended it, per the ICA, and pause the funds until they answer.” Here’s how it could work: ICA Compliance: The ICA (2 U.S.C. § 683-684) lets the president propose rescissions (permanent cuts) or deferrals (temporary delays) of appropriated funds. For rescissions, he sends a special message to Congress detailing what he wants to cut and why; Congress has 45 days to approve it with a majority vote, or the funds must be released. For deferrals, he notifies Congress, and they can disapprove it via a resolution. Trump’s move would fit the deferral route—pausing funds while “asking” Congress to clarify intent. If he follows the ICA’s process (notification, justification), he’s technically compliant. Freezing Funds: During the deferral period, the funds are on hold. The ICA allows this unless Congress acts to stop it (e.g., with a disapproval resolution). Historically, deferrals were routine—think Carter pausing construction projects—but Nixon’s abuses led to tighter rules. Still, Trump could argue: “I’m not impounding; I’m deferring pending clarification.” If he does this for every disputed item—$20,000 toilet seats, Congo studies, whatever—he could grind spending to a halt on anything he dislikes. Does This Take Jurisdiction Away from Courts? Here’s where it gets dicey: Legal Limbo: If Trump complies with the ICA, the decision is in limbo—shifted to Congress. Courts typically won’t touch a case that’s “unripe” or lacks a final agency action (per Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967). If the freeze is a lawful deferral awaiting congressional response, judges might say: “This isn’t our call yet; Congress has 45 days.” The Supreme Court loves dodging political hot potatoes—see Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) on gerrymandering—so they could punt, claiming it’s a political question between branches. Current 2025 Cases: Trump’s existing freezes (e.g., January’s OMB memo) didn’t follow ICA rules, so courts stepped in. But if he pivots tomorrow to ICA-compliant deferrals, new lawsuits might stall. Judges like McConnell or AliKhan could lack jurisdiction until Congress acts or the deferral expires without resolution, assuming Trump’s paperwork holds up. Caveat: Courts could still intervene if the deferrals are a sham—say, if Trump floods Congress with thousands of requests to paralyze it, or if he defies a congressional disapproval. The ICA bans deferrals that effectively rescind funds without approval (Train v. City of New York vibes), so a pattern of bad faith might keep courts in play. But a single, legit deferral? Probably out of their hands for now. Who Gets Sued—Congress? If the funds are frozen legally under the ICA and Congress hasn’t acted, the dynamic shifts: States/Recipients’ Standing: A state like Rhode Island or a group expecting funds (e.g., an Antarctic research team) would still have standing to sue—they’re harmed by the freeze. But their target changes. Trump’s off the hook if he’s ICA-compliant; the delay’s on Congress for not responding. So, they’d likely sue Congress, arguing: “You appropriated this; make him release it.” Suing Congress: This is rare and tricky. Courts hate ordering Congress to act due to separation of powers and the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6), which shields legislative activity. In Walker v. Cheney (2002), a court dodged suing Congress over GAO access, citing political questions. A lawsuit demanding Congress clarify intent or pass a resolution might get dismissed as nonjusticiable—judges don’t like herding cats on Capitol Hill. Practical Outcome: The state or group could also sue the executive agency (e.g., Department of Defense) managing the funds, claiming the deferral’s illegal. But if Trump’s dots are crossed, the agency points to the ICA and Congress’s inaction. The plaintiffs’ real beef becomes political: pressure Congress to move, not a winnable court fight. How It Plays Out Trump Wins (Short Term): By spamming Congress with deferral requests—“Did you mean this toilet seat? This study?”—he could freeze billions legally. Congress, gridlocked as ever (e.g., a 51-49 Senate), might not muster votes to approve or disapprove within 45 days. Funds stay on hold, courts step back, and Trump stalls spending without breaking the law. Congress’s Move: They’d have to counter—pass a law banning mass deferrals, override a veto (good luck with that), or clarify every appropriation down to the penny. Without action, Trump keeps the upper hand. Your “lack of balls” critique holds: their paralysis empowers him. Plaintiffs Stuck: States or recipients could sue Congress, but it’s a long shot—courts rarely force legislative action. They’d be left lobbying or waiting out the 45 days, hoping Congress grows a spine. Bottom Line Yes, if Trump starts asking Congress per the ICA tomorrow, he could shut down funding legally until they act. It would take jurisdiction from courts during the deferral window, as it’s a live political process, not a judicial one. States or groups would then need to sue Congress—or pressure them politically—but that’s a weak play; courts won’t easily touch it. Trump’s compliance would flip the script: no more judge battles, just a standoff with a do-nothing Congress. Smart move—until Congress figures out how to hit back.