White House Rejects GAO Report on $5B EV Funding Freeze as Constitutional Clash Looms

When the White House Office of Management and Budget dismissed the Government Accountability Office’s finding that the Trump administration illegally blocked $5 billion in electric vehicle charging funds, it didn’t just spark outrage—it ignited a constitutional firestorm. The rejection, issued on May 23, 2025, came just hours after GAO released its report confirming the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 by freezing congressionally approved spending without seeking congressional approval. The money, earmarked under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, was meant to fund charging stations across 37 states. Now, construction crews are idle, contractors are laying off workers, and local governments are scrambling to cover shortfalls. This isn’t just about EVs. It’s about who controls the purse strings—and whether the president can simply decide what Congress says must be spent.

How the Freeze Happened

The Department of Energy halted disbursement of $5 billion in funding for the Renew America’s Schools program, which includes EV infrastructure grants for public schools, community centers, and municipal fleets. GAO found no legal justification for the freeze. Unlike in 2024, when delays in wind energy funding were deemed administrative, this time the DOE didn’t even claim it was reviewing the program for efficiency—it simply stopped writing checks. Meanwhile, the Department of Transportation and Department of the Interior also froze funds for public transit upgrades and park charging hubs. The pattern? No formal rescission requests. No congressional notification. Just silence.

And then there’s the data blackout. GAO discovered the OMB had quietly removed apportionment data—legally required spending schedules—from its public website. That’s not just a transparency issue; it’s a violation of the 1974 law, which mandates that all federal spending allocations be accessible to Congress and the public. "They’re not just ignoring the law," said one former GAO analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They’re erasing the paper trail."

The Legal Battle Lines

On April 29, Gene Dodaro, the U.S. Comptroller General and head of GAO, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the OMB had ignored requests in 39 separate investigations. "They’ve been unresponsive," Dodaro said. "We’ve had to rely on public filings and FOIA requests just to get basic information." The agencies named: Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services also failed to respond to GAO inquiries.

Enter Mark Paoletta, OMB’s general counsel. In a letter dated May 23, he accused GAO of "exceeding its statutory authority" and claimed cooperation would only happen if it didn’t "impede the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its statutory mandates." Translation: We’ll talk when we feel like it.

GAO’s response was sharp: "Our mission is to support Congress in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities." And that’s the heart of it. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Not the president. Not the OMB. Congress.

Who’s Speaking Up

Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has warned the administration could face lawsuits. But it was Democrat Patty Murray of Washington who delivered the most direct rebuke: "I don’t care about Russ Vought’s personal interpretation of our spending laws; the Constitution is clear, and President Trump simply does not have the power of the purse—Congress does."

And here’s the twist: Vought wasn’t just a bystander in this drama. During Trump’s first term, he helped orchestrate the freeze on military aid to Ukraine—a move that triggered the first impeachment. Back then, Congress pushed back. Now, with a GOP-controlled House and a White House emboldened by the 2024 election, the resistance is coming from a different direction: the courts.

Why This Could Go to the Supreme Court

The Impoundment Control Act was born out of Nixon’s abuse of power in the 1970s. He refused to spend $12 billion in congressionally approved funds, arguing he had "inherent" authority to control spending. Congress responded by passing the law to make it explicit: no rescission without approval. But Vought has long called the law unconstitutional. He’s not alone. Conservative legal scholars argue the president has inherent authority under Article II to manage executive spending.

That’s where the Supreme Court comes in. Legal experts say the case is practically tailor-made for a landmark ruling. "If you get beyond Sept. 30," warned one insider familiar with the case, "it’s gonna be pretty clear it’s been impounded." That’s the end of the fiscal year. If funds remain frozen past then, the legal argument shifts from "delay" to "permanent withholding"—a far more serious violation.

Already, lawsuits are pending in California, New York, and Michigan, where state agencies are suing to compel disbursement. If even one court rules against the administration, the case could leapfrog to the Supreme Court. And with a 6-3 conservative majority, the Court may be willing to test the limits of the 1974 law. If they strike it down, the balance of power in Washington could shift permanently.

What’s at Stake

Beyond the $5 billion in EV funding, over $40 billion in other programs are under review by GAO. School renovations. Rural broadband. Clean water grants. Public transit. All frozen. States are using reserves. Some are raising local taxes. Others are delaying projects indefinitely. The ripple effect is already visible: construction firms are laying off workers. Battery suppliers are scaling back production. Local economies are losing momentum.

"This isn’t policy disagreement," said Dr. Elena Ruiz, a public finance professor at Georgetown. "This is institutional sabotage. If the president can ignore Congress’s spending decisions, then the separation of powers is just a suggestion."

What’s Next

The White House is expected to submit its formal rescissions package to Congress by early June. That’s the legal path forward—if they follow it. But if they don’t, and continue withholding funds without approval, lawsuits will multiply. GAO has already signaled it will support congressional subpoenas. And Senator Murray has hinted at a possible contempt resolution against OMB officials.

By fall, the courts will be flooded. And by next winter, the Supreme Court could be deciding whether the president can veto Congress’s budget—not just through veto power, but by simply refusing to spend.