7 ms·

In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and agains

by ok_dad 1y ago

In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.

otterley 1y ago
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
- xracy 1y ago
  Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
  - otterley 1y ago
    > Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.” Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet. I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
- runako 1y ago
  Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
  - otterley 1y ago
    The situations are a little different. With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably). With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).
    - runako 1y ago
      Point taken. I was mostly addressing the larger question of whether the Executive is breaking the law wrt appropriations. Likely yes. With science funding grants, the administration likely has latitude to make some changes, but the specifics of that latitude are going to be embedded in a thicket of overlapping statutes of different vintages. Without going through all the specific statutes, I relied on the suggestion that if they are okay breaking the law around USAID funding passed in March, they likely are not going to find religion and adhere to laws governing science funding. But I guess anything's possible.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The Fourth Circuit allowed the administration to proceed: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/appeals-court-usaid-ruling-doge-00259154 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/appeals-court-usaid... That is not a final word on the constitutionality of dissolving USAID, but it's an indication that the Court didn't believe plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success on the merits to justify the preliminary injunction.
    - runako 1y ago
      The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.
Detrytus 1y ago
Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress. So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.
- superturkey650 1y ago
  Why can’t he discriminate on political affiliation?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - xracy 1y ago
    Because our system would fall apart every 4 years when a different party started diverting money to their cronies. How corrupt do you want a nation to be?
    - vaidhy 1y ago
      But it is not illegal!! Morals or ethics do not necessarily determine if it is legal.
      - otterley 1y ago
        It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit. We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
    - deleted 1y ago
SoftTalker 1y ago
AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch). If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- SR2Z 1y ago
  There are many situations where Congress has actually specified in detail where the money should go. These are also being ignored.
- ok_dad 1y ago
  It really does seem like Congress has wanted a dictatorial executive for a while doesn’t it? I wasn’t aware they had shirked their duty for so long.

by ok_dad 1y ago

otterley 1y ago

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.

xracy 1y ago
Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
- otterley 1y ago
  > Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.” Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet. I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
runako 1y ago
Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
- otterley 1y ago
  The situations are a little different. With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably). With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).
  - runako 1y ago
    Point taken. I was mostly addressing the larger question of whether the Executive is breaking the law wrt appropriations. Likely yes. With science funding grants, the administration likely has latitude to make some changes, but the specifics of that latitude are going to be embedded in a thicket of overlapping statutes of different vintages. Without going through all the specific statutes, I relied on the suggestion that if they are okay breaking the law around USAID funding passed in March, they likely are not going to find religion and adhere to laws governing science funding. But I guess anything's possible.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 1y ago
  > I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The Fourth Circuit allowed the administration to proceed: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/appeals-court-usaid-ruling-doge-00259154 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/appeals-court-usaid... That is not a final word on the constitutionality of dissolving USAID, but it's an indication that the Court didn't believe plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success on the merits to justify the preliminary injunction.
  - runako 1y ago
    The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.

Detrytus 1y ago

Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress. So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.

superturkey650 1y ago
Why can’t he discriminate on political affiliation?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- xracy 1y ago
  Because our system would fall apart every 4 years when a different party started diverting money to their cronies. How corrupt do you want a nation to be?
  - vaidhy 1y ago
    But it is not illegal!! Morals or ethics do not necessarily determine if it is legal.
    - otterley 1y ago
      It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit. We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
  - deleted 1y ago

SoftTalker 1y ago

AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch). If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
SR2Z 1y ago
There are many situations where Congress has actually specified in detail where the money should go. These are also being ignored.
ok_dad 1y ago
It really does seem like Congress has wanted a dictatorial executive for a while doesn’t it? I wasn’t aware they had shirked their duty for so long.