Click through to the Train decision. It has been firmly held that per the Article 1 separation of powers, Congress determines how money is spent. Impoundment is used (and it certainly is used routinely) only when the executive determines that a disbursement will not serve it's intended purpose. Quote from Train, "the president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment". I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process.

This goes right back to his first impeachment where we got a clear lesson on this. Congress authorized money for the defense of Ukraine. It went through multiple mandatory controls with DoD and other agencies to ensure the specific disbursement was likely to reach it's intended target. Those controls could have triggered impoundment if they found any flaws, but they did not. Then it was stopped by the president expressly to extort a political favor from Ukraine. In this case, the House voted to impeach and the Senate refused to convict likely due to political loyalty. Now that he knows Congress likely won't stop him, he can abuse his authority as he pleases.

> I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process.

The Train decision came nearly 200 years after Article 1 was written, and during that time impoundment was practiced by Presidents beginning with Thomas Jefferson. Overturning Train would in fact restore the original meaning of Article 1.

There is no way in hell the founders thought a president could unilaterally disassemble an entire agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress. Thomas Jefferson didn't want to buy ships. He didn't try to disband the Navy. And it's possible the SC would have stopped him if Congress had the will. There is not a long history of impoundment being a major tool of executive authority. When Nixon tried to shut down multiple programs within an agency, he was shot down in court and Congress passed a law delineating exactly what he could and could not do. There is no reason to think that law runs afoul of the Constitution. Article 1 does not grant any right to impoundment. The actions of past presidents aren't precedent or else (in the case of Jefferson) we'd still have slavery.

If you disagree, please type the words: "The President can unilaterally disband a federal agency empowered by Congress whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants and no one can stop him". Because that is what you are implying.

I think it's clear that the founders never considered the possibility of a president disbanding a modern federal agency because they didn't think such large agencies would exist. They tried to reserve most power for the states. And if they had known the modern federal government could become so big, they would support shutting it down. The president is meant to act as a check on Congressional spending too.

They also couldn't envision women voting. The president has veto power over the budget. That is their check on spending. They absolutely positively do not have any authority to cancel a Congressional appropriation and they never have.

You know what else the founders definitely did not envision? A standing federal army. Trump is honor bound to the soul of George Washington to disband the DoD and reclaim $800B. Surely that is 100% his prerogative and nobody has any right to stop him.