Does the Appropriations Clause Have Bite?

Article One, Section Nine, Clause Seven states in part:"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law . . ."Let's say a President asks Congress for $1 billion to fund a project that he's keen on. Congress declines the request. The President then sues the United States on some fictitious claim of injury and the US "settles" the case for $1 billion. The President then uses that money to fund the project that he wanted.Structurally, this must be forbidden. The power of the purse would be gravely weakened. But what is the textual basis for such a bar? I think it would be the Appropriations Clause, on the theory that a collusive lawsuit or settlement is not law. But I must admit that I do not know much about the original meaning or the application of the Appropriations Clause. Might be worth a closer look.