CryptCrawler
Well-known member
The White House has devised a creative way to fund government operations during the ongoing shutdown, but it may be doing so at the expense of breaking the law. In an effort to minimize the political fallout from the prolonged closure, President Trump and his Budget Chief Russell Vought have resorted to using funds in ways that circumvent Congressional authority.
This approach is not uncommon during federal shutdowns; however, the Trump administration's actions are taking it a step further by exploiting loopholes in existing laws. For instance, the White House recently announced plans to transfer tariffs revenue from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to fund military paychecks. While this move may have provided temporary relief to some Republican lawmakers, it has raised concerns about potential constitutional implications.
Vought's Office of Management and Budget has been using the Antideficiency Act, a law that prohibits federal agencies from spending or obligating funds not explicitly authorized by Congress. However, it appears that the administration is interpreting this law in a narrow and potentially unlawful manner. The White House has also sent notifications to Congress stating its intention to use research and development funds to pay military personnel.
Critics argue that these actions constitute an overreach of executive power and may be in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits drawing money from the Treasury without Congressional authorization. The modern Antideficiency Act, enacted in 1884, is a direct descendant of an earlier law aimed at preventing the federal government from spending funds not explicitly allocated by Congress.
In light of these concerns, some lawmakers have expressed reluctance to defend their own authority over the purse strings. Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have shown little enthusiasm for protecting Congressional powers, while House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers has hinted that he will not take a strong stance against the White House's actions.
It remains to be seen whether any lawsuits or court challenges will arise from these developments. For now, it appears that the Trump administration is intent on pushing the limits of the law, relying on the White House's ability to circumvent Congressional oversight and ignore potential constitutional consequences.
This approach is not uncommon during federal shutdowns; however, the Trump administration's actions are taking it a step further by exploiting loopholes in existing laws. For instance, the White House recently announced plans to transfer tariffs revenue from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to fund military paychecks. While this move may have provided temporary relief to some Republican lawmakers, it has raised concerns about potential constitutional implications.
Vought's Office of Management and Budget has been using the Antideficiency Act, a law that prohibits federal agencies from spending or obligating funds not explicitly authorized by Congress. However, it appears that the administration is interpreting this law in a narrow and potentially unlawful manner. The White House has also sent notifications to Congress stating its intention to use research and development funds to pay military personnel.
Critics argue that these actions constitute an overreach of executive power and may be in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits drawing money from the Treasury without Congressional authorization. The modern Antideficiency Act, enacted in 1884, is a direct descendant of an earlier law aimed at preventing the federal government from spending funds not explicitly allocated by Congress.
In light of these concerns, some lawmakers have expressed reluctance to defend their own authority over the purse strings. Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have shown little enthusiasm for protecting Congressional powers, while House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers has hinted that he will not take a strong stance against the White House's actions.
It remains to be seen whether any lawsuits or court challenges will arise from these developments. For now, it appears that the Trump administration is intent on pushing the limits of the law, relying on the White House's ability to circumvent Congressional oversight and ignore potential constitutional consequences.
the whole point of having a budget is so everyone knows how much moolah is comin in and out 
but i guess thats too much to expect from washington 
and now theres all these loopholes and laws that can be twisted around like rubber bands 
i hope someone checks the constitution for us, this is getting weird 
I'm really worried about this 
. It sounds like they're trying to get around Congress just because they can't agree 
. I mean, who gets to decide how our tax money is spent? Not the President alone 
, that's not right! 
. And if Congress isn't speaking up, then we need more voices to hold them accountable 
.
what about all those kids who really need that food? not to mention the fact that Congress is supposed to be in charge of our budget, not some fancy loophole in the law. I'm worried about where this is gonna lead - more executive overreach and a whole lot of uncertainty for the average American 
... I mean, what's going on here? It seems like our so-called leaders are more interested in playing politics than doing what's right for the country. I get it, funding a government shutdown can be tough, but exploiting loopholes and pushing boundaries like this is just not okay 
.
. I'm all about a strong executive branch, but there has to be some balance here 
.
. And what really gets me is that some lawmakers are starting to back down on their own authority. That's like a domino effect – if they can't stand up for themselves, who will? 
! I mean, can't they just do what Congress says? It's not that hard, right?