Legal questions over Trump plan to pay troops amid shutdown

Key Concepts

• Power of the Purse: The constitutional authority of Congress to control government spending.
• Antideficiency Act: A federal statute that prohibits government agencies from spending money that has not been appropriated by Congress.
• Appropriations: Funds that have been authorized by Congress for a specific purpose.
• Tariff Revenues: Money collected by the government from taxes on imported goods.
• Government Shutdown: A situation where federal government operations are suspended due to a lack of appropriated funds.

Legal Hurdles in Government Funding Efforts

The transcript discusses concerns raised by legal experts and lawmakers regarding the Trump administration's methods of funding essential government functions during a prolonged government shutdown. The core of the legal challenge lies in the fundamental principle of "the power of the purse," which is vested in Congress by the Constitution.

1. Congressional Authority vs. Executive Action:

• Main Topic: The constitutional division of power regarding government spending.
• Key Point: The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to appropriate funds. The President's role is to execute Congress's appropriations, not to create them independently.
• Supporting Evidence: Jessica Levinson, CBS News Legal Contributor and Professor at Loyola Law School, emphasizes that "Congress has the power of the purse. Under the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the spending authority, and it is absolutely the case that the President then carries into execution. Congress is appropriations, but doesn't make appropriations on his own."

2. The Antideficiency Act:

• Main Topic: A federal statute governing the use of appropriated funds.
• Key Point: The Antideficiency Act prohibits the use of funds for a purpose if Congress has not appropriated money for it, or if Congress has indicated it might not appropriate money in the future. This act is a significant legal hurdle for the administration's funding maneuvers.
• Technical Term: Antideficiency Act: A federal statute that prevents government agencies from spending money that has not been appropriated by Congress.
• Explanation: This law ensures that government spending is authorized and controlled by the legislative branch.
• Supporting Evidence: Levinson states, "It's not just the Constitution, it's the Antideficiency Act, which essentially says if Congress has not appropriated money for this purpose, or if Congress has will in the future potentially appropriate the money, you can't use it now."

3. Moving Funds and Future Appropriations:

• Main Topic: The legality of reallocating funds and using anticipated future revenues.
• Key Point: The administration's approach of moving money from one budgetary "bucket" to another, and attempting to use funds that are expected to be received in the future, is a central legal challenge.
• Example: The administration reportedly used tariff revenues to continue funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This program provides assistance to over 6 million low-income young and expectant mothers and their children.
• Argument: The legal challenge arises from "moving money from one bucket to another and trying to move money that you think you might get in the future."

4. Selective Payment of Federal Workers:

• Main Topic: The administration's decision to pay only certain federal workers, primarily those in law enforcement and the military, during the shutdown.
• Key Point: While the legality of how funds are being sourced is a primary legal question, the selection of who gets paid is presented as a potentially separate policy question rather than a direct legal one concerning the ability to spend.
• Distinction: Levinson suggests that "the issue really comes from spending the money and not having Congress have appropriated those funds. In terms of, you know, is the issue that it's just going to certain people. I think that's a separate question, and maybe that's more of a policy question than the legal question of, can you do this?"

5. Lack of Precedent:

• Main Topic: The novelty of the administration's funding strategies.
• Key Point: Legal experts indicate that there is no significant precedent for the methods being employed by the Trump administration to circumvent the shutdown's funding limitations.
• Supporting Evidence: When asked if there is precedent for these funding efforts, Levinson unequivocally states, "There really isn't."

Conclusion

The summary highlights that the Trump administration's efforts to fund government operations during a shutdown are facing significant legal scrutiny. The core of the issue revolves around the constitutional "power of the purse" held by Congress and the restrictions imposed by the Antideficiency Act. The administration's attempts to reallocate funds and utilize anticipated revenues, without explicit congressional appropriation, are seen as legally questionable due to a lack of precedent and a potential violation of these fundamental principles of government finance. While the selective payment of federal workers might be viewed as a policy decision, the underlying mechanism of funding these payments is the primary legal concern.