In a moment that stunned a live CNN panel and cut straight to the heart of constitutional government, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) openly admitted that he supports federal judges ordering a sitting president — in this case, Donald Trump — to spend money that Congress never appropriated. The admission, prompted by CNN commentator Scott Jennings, ignited an instant debate over the balance of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the Democratic Party’s shifting stance on executive authority.
The exchange took place during CNN NewsNight, following a discussion on the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing Trump to avoid tapping into a contingency fund to pay out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during a government shutdown. Several federal district judges had previously ruled that Trump must use federal funds to continue SNAP disbursements — even though Congress had not authorized those funds.
Jennings, seizing the moment, turned to Clyburn with a pointed constitutional question: “Do you believe a judge can compel the executive to spend money that you haven’t appropriated?” Without hesitation, Clyburn responded, “Yes, I do.” Jennings blinked in disbelief: “Really?” “Yes,” Clyburn confirmed again.
It was a staggering moment — not because of a mere policy disagreement, but because it undercut decades of congressional precedent. In American government, Congress — and Congress alone — holds the purse strings. It appropriates, and the executive executes. That wall, foundational to the separation of powers, seemed to crumble with Clyburn’s casual affirmation.
Jennings, clearly astonished, asked the obvious follow-up: “I thought we didn’t want kings?” referencing years of anti-Trump rhetoric from Democrats decrying executive overreach. Clyburn, brushing aside the historical irony, insisted “nobody wants kings,” even as he continued defending judicial orders that override Congress’s exclusive budgetary power.
What unfolded next was a constitutional tug-of-war in real time. Jennings pressed: If a judge can force the president to spend money Congress didn’t allocate, and the president complies, what’s left of congressional authority? “You’re turning the president into one [a king] if he can spend without appropriation,” Jennings argued.
Clyburn’s counter was vague: “Well, now, if you got a rainy day fund, it was appropriated in that time.” But that sidesteps the core issue. A rainy day fund — even if previously appropriated — is still subject to statutory limits. The courts cannot re-appropriate money outside of that framework simply because a crisis occurs or political pressure mounts.
Jennings, backed at moments by The View co-host Ana Navarro, called out the hypocrisy head-on. “You guys have been railing against Trump being authoritarian… And at the same time, Democrats have been arguing that he should go out and spend money that has not been appropriated this year by Congress.”
The Supreme Court has signaled its unease with such judicial activism, especially with the June ruling that sharply limited nationwide injunctions issued by district courts. In that case, involving Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the Court essentially told lower courts: stay in your lane.
That lesson seems to have gone unheeded — not just by federal judges, but by lawmakers like Clyburn who now appear willing to cede their own constitutional role, so long as it serves the right cause.
