Latest news with #ImpoundmentControlActof1974
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republican Attacks On GAO Escalate After Office Condemns DOGE Cuts
A top Trump administration official and Republicans in Congress are upping their attacks on the Government Accountability Office in light of its finding last week that one element of the Trump administration's DOGE rampage was done in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. White House budget chief Russ Vought joined a few members of Congress who posted on social media in recent days downplaying the legitimacy of the office, which is an independent nonpartisan agency embedded within the legislative branch that makes recommendations for lawmakers to consider as part of its legislating. The GAO typically focuses on reviewing federal spending, making recommendations on cost savings and waste and investigating how policies are being put into practice by federal agencies. Last week it found that the Trump administration had violated the Impoundment Control Act when it withheld funding allocated by the Biden-era infrastructure law to build more electric vehicle charging stations around the country. Trump allies are reportedly upset with the GAO about two other things, outside the impoundment finding (which was the outcome of just one of almost 40 investigations the office is currently conducting to look into the DOGE spending freezes of congressionally appropriated funding). The head of GAO Gene Dodaro reportedly rebuffed Elon Musk when his DOGE pals tried to bring a team in to work on downsizing the agency, as it has done with several departments and independent agencies embedded within the executive branch. It is, of course, not an executive branch agency. Last week, 'Senate Republicans disregarded GAO guidance and nixed waivers allowing California to set its own pollution standards, even after the watchdog concluded that the Senate couldn't do that under a simple-majority threshold,' Politico reported. 'Just so we are all clear over the next several months. The Government Accountability Office or GAO is a quasi-independent arm of the legislative branch that played a partisan role in the first-term impeachment hoax,' Vought said on Twitter last week, elevating an old MAGA talking point about the office being in cahoots with those trying to impeach Trump for his pressure campaign against then-new President Volodymyr Zelensky. (The GAO ruled after the House voted to impeach Trump the first time — and before the Senate trial — that Trump had violated the Impoundment Control Act when he froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine to try to get Zelensky to open an investigation into Hunter Biden.) 'They are going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt. These are non-events with no consequence. Rearview mirror stuff,' Vought continued. 'GAO has lost credibility as an independent body,' Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted on Twitter over the weekend in response to the GAO ruling on the EV expansion funds. 'The GAO has no authority,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) said last week. While a Trump executive branch official undermining the credibility of an independent agency that serves as a check on his actions is not new, Trump's allies in Congress have at least, up until this point, tried to operate with a veneer of respect for offices and agencies within its purview. Even in the midst of Trump's Library of Congress power grab, some members of Republican leadership acknowledged that the President's actions may not have been proper. The GAO is expected to release more rulings (which serve as non-binding recommendations to lawmakers) in coming weeks and months as it works its way through a pile of complaints about DOGE's potential Impoundment Control Act violations. Attacks on its legitimacy from lawmakers apparently unbothered by Trump's trampling of the separation of powers are expected to continue as well. In his first few days as the DOJ's new pardon attorney, Ed Martin was hand delivered pardon applications for some Jan. 6 folks by a former classmate of President Trump's. Among those he personally reviewed: Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, as well as some members of the Proud Boys (some of those convicted of seditious conspiracy had their sentences commuted, rather than receiving full pardons.) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is in hot water again. Per a new, bizarre story from The Guardian: The White House has lost confidence in a Pentagon leak investigation that Pete Hegseth used to justify firing three top aides last month, after advisers were told that the aides had supposedly been outed by an illegal warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap. The extraordinary explanation alarmed the advisers, who also raised it with people close to JD Vance, because such a wiretap would almost certainly be unconstitutional and an even bigger scandal than a number of leaks. But the advisers found the claim to be untrue and complained that they were being fed dubious information by Hegseth's personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, who had been tasked with overseeing the investigation. More Than 50 Men Entered The US Legally Only To Later Be Sent To CECOT, Report Finds The 'Invasion' Invention: The Far Right's Long Legal Battle to Make Immigrants the Enemy Trump's Weaponization Of DOJ Takes A Even More Sinister Turn More Than 50 Men Entered The US Legally Only To Later Be Sent To CECOT, Report Finds U.S. Will No Longer Recommend Covid Shots for Children and Pregnant Women Trump team pauses new student visa interviews as it weighs expanding social media vetting Trump Pardoned Tax Cheat After Mother Attended $1 Million Dinner
Epoch Times
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Epoch Times
Trump Admin's EV Funding Freeze Violated Federal Law, Says Government Watchdog
A government watchdog says President Donald Trump's administration may have violated a little-known federal law through a move to rescind funding for a Biden-era electric vehicle (EV) program. The law in question, known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, places limits on the president's power to 'impound,' or unilaterally refuse to disburse, funding appropriated by Congress. As the administration seeks to downsize the federal government through sweeping executive actions, some observers have been expecting a showdown on the issue between Trump, who has raised questions about the law's constitutionality in the past, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the watchdog that oversees impoundment law. In a May 22 On Feb. 6, the DOT announced a freeze on new EV infrastructure grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021. That legislation appropriated $5 billion toward constructing new charging stations and other EV infrastructure as part of former President Joe Biden's push to rapidly phase out gas-powered vehicles. All 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, have sought funding under the law, the GAO reported. Related Stories 5/20/2025 2/3/2025 The GAO said that the move to cancel funding appropriated by Congress is in violation of the 1974 law. According to the GAO, there was a 'mandate to spend' within the IIJA, so 'DOT is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program.' The revocation of new EV grants comes as the president has ordered government-wide staff reductions, withheld funds, and shuttered or merged multiple government agencies and departments in an effort to reduce the size and spending of the federal government. These sweeping executive actions have prompted at least 39 investigations by the GAO, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro told a Senate panel in April. Multiple lawsuits from affected agencies and former employees have also been brought to court. However, until now, there had been few major developments on the issue, with most courts that heard cases related to impoundment refusing to grant injunctions. Party lines have already been forming, however. Trump and his allies have made the case for broad presidential impoundment authority, saying it is a means for the president to exercise oversight on taxpayer funding and prevent wasteful spending. Trump promised on the campaign trail to legally challenge the Impoundment Control Act during his second term. 'This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers,' Trump said in a 2024 campaign Democrats and other critics say the president's use of impoundment transgresses congressional authority. 'From day one, President Trump has unilaterally frozen or contravened critical funding provided in our bipartisan laws,' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during the April hearing in which Dodaro testified. 'That is really not what the Constitution envisioned. Congress has the power of the purse, period. Our presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of a law that they can follow.'
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Decides Now Is Not The Time To Make Republicans Rubber Stamp His DOGE Power Grab—Maybe Later
First it was reported that the Trump White House was considering sending a rescissions package to Congress, a way of letting the legislature rubber stamp some of the spending cuts DOGE has already implemented. Then it was reported that Trump might delay that package, at least a few weeks, while House and Senate Republicans focus on slashing Medicaid and passing the rest of Trump's fiscal priorities in the massive reconciliation bill. Now it seems like he is going to delay even further, perhaps for two years, while the White House focuses on its real goal: launching a legal challenge against the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limits a president's ability to freeze or not spend funds that have already been appropriated by Congress. If he succeeds, the whole rescissions thing might just be moot. Politico reports that the Trump administration is now looking at a two-year timeline for a rescissions package, kicking the can on the date when it may, eventually, attempt to shove portions of Trump and Elon Musk's already-implemented, destructive DOGE cuts down congressional Republicans' throats. Some Republicans are reportedly unnerved by the constitutionally backward move. Others, like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), are seemingly on board with the move, but recognize it is a lot to stomach. 'I think they don't want to lose the vote, so I think they may be concerned about the sensibility,' Sen. Josh Hawley told Politico of the delay. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of the few Republicans who has publicly nodded in the direction of acknowledging that Elon's actions are constitutionally problematic. He has maintained that the DOGE cuts are not legal until they've been approved by Congress. More from Politico: While the rescissions package would move on a separate track, the White House is recognizing that Congress is preoccupied. Therefore, it's giving itself a much longer timeline to codify DOGE cuts while leaving open the option of challenging the Impoundment Control Act, the 1974 law that limits a president's ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. Trump's allies have argued the president already has authority to withhold spending but it would likely be up to the courts to decide, given that the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. 'The focus right now is the reconciliation bill,' said a White House official granted anonymity to speak freely. 'I think there's an appetite within Capitol Hill, within the two years that we have to codify the work of DOGE. The procedures of Capitol Hill may not allow for it to happen now but it doesn't mean it won't happen later.' The public corruption unit in the FBI's Washington Field Office has been shut down. The group helped former Special Counsel Jack Smith in his investigation into Trump and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The FBI's Washington Field Office has three units that work on public corruption. The one that's been shuttered was known as CR15. That unit was involved with the FBI's initial investigation into the Trump 2020 election subversion scheme — the investigation that ultimately flowed into Smith's federal criminal case against Trump. According to NBC News, the special agents that were working in the special unit will be reassigned, rather than fired — a break from the FBI's previous mode of operations under director Kash Patel, who, even before he was confirmed, allegedly aided in the firing of prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 cases. Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee advanced legislation that includes massive cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in a party line 29-25 vote Wednesday night. The GOP proposal — which would cut as much as $300 billion from the food aid program that more than 40 million people rely on — aims to establish a new cost-sharing system with states that penalizes them with higher costs based on their individual payment error rates. That would mean that states with payment error rates between six percent and eight percent would pay for 15% of SNAP, while states with error rates between eight percent and 10 percent would pay for 20%. And states with error rates above 10% would be hit with taking on the responsibility of 25 percent of the benefits. 'These cuts hurt families, putting 4 million children between seven and seventeen at greater risk of food insecurity,' Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT), ranking member of the nutrition subcommittee, said in a statement following the committee's budget markup. 'It is unconscionable that we are effectively debating whether a seven-year-old, with no control over the situation of their family, deserves food assistance, not just at home, but also potentially at school and during the summer, as other nutrition programs tied to SNAP are impacted.' The bill will now make its way to the House Budget Committee, which is expected to meet at 9 a.m. ET on Friday to put together the reconciliation package, getting it ready for a floor vote next week. — Emine Yücel House Democrats are opening an investigation into Trump's shady acceptance of a $400 million private jet from the government of Qatar. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington on Thursday asking the attorney general for a supposed memo that was written justifying the legality of Trump accepting the gift. The letter was signed by other Dems on the House Judiciary Committee. An excerpt: Any legal memo purporting to make such a claim would obviously fly in the face of the text of the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting any 'present [or] Emolument… of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' unless he has 'the Consent of Congress. Trump Admin Admits It Could Game Court System Without Nationwide Injunctions Birthright Citizenship Is Safe For Now. Nationwide Injunctions Are Not. Catch up on our live coverage of Supreme Court oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case here: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In Birthright Citizenship Case, With Consequences For Courts' Ability To Check Trump Personalization, The Vastly Bigger Story Behind the Pimpmobile Jet Bribe We ran 10 flagship state colleges. The war on higher ed won't stop with Harvard. The rampant federal fraud that DOGE is largely ignoring Noem eyes $50M for new DHS jet
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Threatens Congress if They Don't Pass His Radical Budget
Donald Trump has just sent Republicans in Congress a budget proposal that cuts nearly everything, and if they don't like it, he says he'll withhold cash that they approve, setting up a constitutional crisis. The budget proposal, released Friday, would slash nearly every federal program by $163 billion, except for defense spending, which would remain flat. Many Republicans are already unhappy with it, but the White House may not heed their concerns. One official in the Office of Management and Budget told Politico that the administration wouldn't rule out impoundment, or overriding Congress's decision by withholding funding they have already approved. 'We're working with Congress to see what they will pass, and I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts,' said the official. Such a move would violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Trump and his allies have called unconstitutional. The law prevents the president from withholding money allocated by Congress or using it for different purposes. Trump attempting to impound funds in this way would be a direct challenge to the Constitution's separation of powers, and could result in a legal fight that ends up in front of the Supreme Court. Trump hinted at bringing back 'presidential impoundment authority' while campaigning for president, making his attempt to seize appropriated funds a real possibility despite the Constitution clearly stating that the authority over government spending lies with Congress. The head of OMB, Project 2025 author Russell Vought, also called the Impoundment Act unconstitutional in his confirmation hearing. So, will the president try to impound funds, and will Republicans stand up for their own constitutional authority if he does? The GOP has not shown much, if any resolve, in standing up to Trump, and Democrats have little they can do as the minority in the House and Senate. It seems that if Trump tries to seize funds, the courts may be the only check on his power.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Will the Supreme Court check Trump's unconstitutional acts? It may come down to one justice
Increasingly it is clear that the only checks on the unconstitutional acts of the Trump administration will come from the courts. But will the conservative Roberts court, with three justices appointed by Donald Trump, be willing to stop the president's illegal acts? The answer is unclear, although a ruling on Friday afternoon is disturbing and indicates that enforcing the Constitution against the Trump administration may depend on one justice, Amy Coney Barrett. The matter on Friday involved the Trump administration's cutting off $65 million in teacher training grants from the U.S. Department of Education in February. The rationale? The grants included money for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. California and other states filed suit in federal court in Boston to restore the funding. The federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, concluding that its cutoff of funds was likely illegal and unconstitutional. The money for teacher training had been appropriated by Congress in a federal statute. The president has no constitutional authority to usurp Congress' spending power. Moreover, there is a federal statute, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, that prohibits presidents from refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress. Read more: Caught off-guard, California colleges scramble to determine scope of student visa cancellations In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the district court and lifted the temporary restraining order. The majority comprised Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent. Strikingly, the unsigned three-page majority opinion does not dispute that the cutoff of funds was unconstitutional and illegal. As Kagan said in a dissent, 'Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here.' Instead, the majority suggested that the federal government would be harmed by disbursing the money because, if it ultimately prevailed in the litigation, it would be unlikely to recoup the funds. The majority also suggested that the appropriate forum for the case would be an action for breach of contract in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims, not a federal district court. The focus likely would no longer be on how the government was violating the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act. Read more: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to block order to return Maryland man from El Salvador These are troubling arguments because they would greatly limit the authority of federal courts to prevent the president from unconstitutionally and illegally refusing to spend money appropriated by federal statute. And that would mean giving license to a huge shift in power over federal spending from Congress to the president. Jackson wrote a powerful dissent explaining that temporary restraining orders generally are not reviewable on appeal, that the government was entitled to relief only if it could show there was an emergency situation that could cause irreparable harm, and that it long has been established that federal courts have authority to halt illegal cutoffs of federal funds. She wrote: 'It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government's application as an emergency. It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the Government when the Government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully.' Read more: Appeals court reverses Trump firings of 2 board members in cases likely headed for Supreme Court What is also puzzling is that just a few weeks ago, on March 5, the Supreme Court came to the seemingly opposite conclusion in another case involving the Trump administration's cutting off of federal funds. In Department of State vs. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the court, 5-4, ruled that the federal district court has the authority to order the Trump administration to restore funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development. In that instance Barrett joined the majority, along with Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, and Alito wrote a blistering dissent, rejecting the authority of federal courts to order USAID's funds to be restored. It is unknown what difference Barrett saw between these two cases because she did not write opinions. But it seems to indicate that there are four justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) who will be with Trump at least in this area, and four who will be against the president (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson). Whether and when the president can cut off funds seemingly will turn on Barrett's views. This is not a hard constitutional question. The president has no power under the Constitution or any federal law to block the spending of money appropriated by Congress. There are several other emergency petitions filed by the Trump administration pending before the Supreme Court. One involves the administration's claim that federal courts have no authority to order the release of a man from a maximum security prison in El Salvador even when the government concedes he was put there wrongly. Another involves an order by a federal district court judge blocking the president's efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify moving more than 200 Venezuelans to that same prison without due process. Yet another administration petition involves whether federal courts can issue a nationwide injunction ending birthright citizenship for those born in the United States to parents who are not citizens. And another seeks to overturn a federal court order that said Trump acted illegally in firing individuals in six federal agencies. The Supreme Court will no doubt act quickly on these petitions. These decisions will provide a strong indication of whether the justices will check the unconstitutional acts of the Trump administration. And if the court does not enforce the Constitution, then who will? Erwin Chemerinsky, a contributing writer to Opinion, is dean of the UC Berkeley Law School. His latest book is "No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States." If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
