a_puppy

This article notes that some federally-funded nonprofits "couldn’t access funds to make payroll": https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5115026-white-house-fund...

People rely on their paycheck to pay bills! If anyone stops getting their paycheck, that's not "keeping the lights on". Do you agree that any "review" mustn't prevent anyone from receiving their paycheck?

A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...

> It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.

Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.

> it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.

Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.

Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)

It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...

For example, Biden criticized the extreme left in the summer 2020 protests: https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-inju...

> Protesting [police] brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.

We need more of that from our politicians. When Republicans are willing to criticize Trump, I respect them enormously for it; but few Republicans are willing to publicly disagree with Trump.

In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, then Congress didn't necessarily mean "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent". It could be interpreted to mean "the FBI may spend up to $X on computers". But Congress has clarified this ambiguity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...

> the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.

In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, but the President thinks $X is excessive, then the President may ask Congress for permission to spend less than $X. If Congress doesn't grant the permission within 45 days, then the President must go ahead and spend the full $X. Again, Congress literally has the power to set the laws, and the President is required by his oath of office to execute those laws.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court already ruled on this exact question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York

> President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.

That case seems directly analogous to what Musk is currently trying to do. Nixon lost that case in the Supreme Court.

Even if the Supreme Court did rule that the President had impoundment powers, it would probably be on the condition that "[the purpose of the law] could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount" (quoting from the page you linked). For example, the President would still be required to buy sufficient computers for the FBI, even if he spent less than $X on them. The President still wouldn't be able to just unilaterally decide "no, the FBI doesn't need computers, this is a waste of money".

So, I think it's already quite clear that Trump/Musk do not have the constitutional authority to just start cutting government programs. Do you agree? If not, which part do you want further clarity on?

> Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? ... This is taxpayers money ... A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.

Reviewed for what?

Reviewed for whether the spending was authorized by Congress? If Musk finds that money is being spent in ways that are not authorized by Congress, and cuts that spending, great.

Reviewed for whether the money is being used efficiently to accomplish the goals set by Congress? Again, if Musk finds ways to stretch the same amount of money to accomplish more, that's great. For example, if Musk makes USAID more efficient so it delivers more aid for the same amount of money, that would be wonderful.

Or "reviewed" for whether Trump/Musk agree with them? It's illegal for the President to unilaterally cut programs just because he doesn't like them.