Donald Trump has ordered that U.S. military personnel receive paychecks despite the ongoing government shutdown, a decision that has raised concerns among legal experts and political analysts. This unprecedented action was taken in direct response to the furlough of nearly 700,000 federal workers. An additional 600,000 are currently on furlough and thus no pay. Trump’s order addresses the mental health needs of our service members, veterans, and their families directly. He views this group as being politically untouchable, particularly during this current congressional impasse over federal appropriations.
The federal government closed down at the start of October. This occurred after Democrats and Republicans were unable to reach an agreement on a bill to extend funding past September 30th. In response to this situation, Trump announced on Thursday that an unnamed “friend” had contributed $130 million to ensure that service members would receive their paychecks during the shutdown. Later reports confirmed that the donor to Trump was none other than Timothy Mellon, the notorious reclusive billionaire and Trump supporter.
Policy experts view the cause of Trump’s unprecedented action as a deliberate attempt to consolidate governmental control from Congress to the executive branch. Phil Wallach, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted trouble with this move. He cautioned it could set a dangerous precedent, allowing the president to unilaterally fund other controversial decisions down the road. Wallach spoke to the critical importance of congressional appropriations in controlling government purse strings.
“The whole point of the budget deal is to figure out how you’re going to allocate your limited resources… how can you ever make a funding deal?” – Bobby Kogan
Earlier this month, Trump redirected around $8 billion in military spending to ensure our troops still got paid during the shutdown. Sean Parnell, chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, confirmed acceptance of these funds under the Pentagon’s general gift acceptance authority. This dance has come under a firestorm for being without congressional authorization to pay those troops during the new fiscal year.
Christopher Mirasola, an election and law professor at the University of Houston, said the potential legality is the main concern surrounding Trump’s actions. He pointed out that civil servants who execute Trump’s orders could theoretically face prosecution for violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees from spending funds not appropriated by Congress.
“I’m just not sure if a future administration would have the appetite to bring career government officials… for complying with something even if they knew that it was illegal.” – Christopher Mirasola
Bobby Kogan, of the Center for American Progress, expressed concern over what Trump’s move might mean. First, he argued that if the president can simply ignore statutory budgetary caps, it completely defeats the appropriations process. Kogan argued that these steps would open the door to dangerous, volatile spending and political gamesmanship.
“If the president can just completely ignore anything and everything… he can drain accounts and use them on whatever he wants.” – Bobby Kogan
Trump’s move, say legal experts, is another indication of his break from precedent and more typically understood forms of governance. Wallach highlighted that any attempt by the president to circumvent Congress could fundamentally alter the balance of power regarding military deployments within the United States.
“If my theory that appropriations are the most important limit on these domestic military deployments… then moves like this [are] really a strike at one of the most significant amendments on the president’s authority.” – Phil Wallach
Members of Congress are still reconciling with what their next steps should be to address the continued government shutdown. They have to deal with the fallout from Trump’s reckless and ill-fated funding strategy. While some lawmakers may support military personnel receiving their paychecks during this crisis, many express concern over setting a precedent that could undermine congressional authority.