A controversial idea to hand over even more power to the president

Copyright © HT Digital Streams Limit all rights reserved. The Economist 5 Min Read 03 Apr 2025, 04:56 PM IST US President Donald Trump. Photo: All Drago/Bloomberg Summary shooter is about to get a step closer that leads the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), perhaps everyday, but the role is one of Washington’s most important. Russell VOUGTH, who has done the work for the last two years of Donald Trump’s first term, is ready to return. After a confirmation vote planned for the coming days, he is expected to test the boundaries of the presidential power as the new administration is trying to reform the federal government. During his confirmation hearing on January 15, Mr. Vought told Senators that he was the vow of Mr. Trump would follow to pursue “shooter”. It is the practice that presidents refuse to spend money that has allocated the congress, which shifts power to the White House. To take a current example, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that placed an ‘immediate pause’ on billions of dollars allocated under the 2021 two -pronged infrastructure law, and the inflation reduction law of 2022. No money will go out for current projects-the new roads, bridges and electrical charge of the official of the officials. adopted “. The same is possible to apply to military assistance for Ukraine. He said that the 1974 Feeder Control Act (ICA), which was passed on the presidents after Richard Nixon held billions of dollars for education, the armed forces and the environment, was unconstitutional. (This is one of the various restrictions on Watergate era on the presidency that Trump wants to be rid of.) His inner circle speaks as one on the matter. In an OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal after the election, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy wrote that Mr. Trump could cut the federal spending “by executive action alone”. During the first term of Mr. Trump has Mr. Vought participated in the $ 214 million freezing in military assistance for Ukraine – a shooter that led to the first prosecution of Mr. Trump in 2019. During his trial this month, Mr. Vought noted that the funds were eventually released after a ‘policy process’ was carried out by the administration. He repeated the phrase (a justification for the blocking of funds that are considered incompatible with the president’s policy) five times during his two -hour appearance before the committee. Mr. Vought’s colleagues at his thinking tank, the Center for the renewal of America, made the constitutional and historical case for shooter in a few blog posts and a white paper last year. The primary writer, Mark Paoletta, was in the first term of Mr. Trump the top lawyer at the OMB and was tapped again. Shooter is a ‘key instrument’, writes Mr. Paoletta, ‘to ensure that the constellation of the congressional financing measures is implemented in a legitimate and reasonable way that ensures good management’. According to him, the government flows from different corners of the Constitution, including a clause in Article II that requires presidents “ensuring that the laws are carried out faithfully”. ‘[I]F a budget violates the Constitution “, says Mr. Paoletta,” the president can shoot it. “Presidents have been defamated for centuries, says Mr. Paoletta. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson did not choose not to spend $ 50,000. Congress had linked to the depression of the Mississippi. Meaned for veterans hospitals. The shooter”. Jefferson’s unconditional gun boats were funded by a law that ‘authorized expenses without requiring it’, Mr. Price pointed out. In the words of the statute, the president was able to buy a number of no more than fifteen gun boats with “an amount of no more than fifty thousand dollars”. This built -in discretion was common in statutes for decades. And even when the language has become less flexible, Mr. Price, the congress usually assigned funds in a ‘permissive rather than compulsory way’. Until Nixon, shooter “did not involve any allegation of constitutional authority to act contrary to the congressional regulations”. The ICA made this norm bond. When a president wants to delay a expenses, he must send a special note that informs the congress and has to spend the money by the end of the financial year. He cannot cancel a payment directly without the express approval of Congress. Eloise Pasachoff, a legal professor at Georgetown, sees little basis to challenge the ICA constitutionality. In 1998, the Supreme Court had the veto of the line item-which was rubbed with another name because it allowed presidents to use the authority of Congress. Even the ArchConservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Ms Pasachoff shows, “rejects the shooting theory” in his separate opinion in that case. Some members of the congress prefer to recall the ICA. Mike Lee, a senator from Utah, is the law as a “relic of the Watergate era” and in December has entered into legislation to do so. But there are not enough votes to accept such a law. This leaves the courts the best way for Mr. Vought and Company to get their way. Who may be fighting back in court? Not dissatisfied lawmakers, as individual members of Congress are not to sue. For example, Ms Pasachoff says there are many potential plaintiffs: states, cities and defense contractors. Any real or potential recipients of funds competing for contracts or applying for grants in fields such as information technology or construction can come to court by showing that the president’s close fists have harmed them. But the establishment of ‘standing’ (the right to bring a claim to court) may not be so easy, says Matt Lawrence of Emory University, and there are other ‘significant obstacles for judicial review of spending decisions’. Stay briefly aware of American politics with the US, our daily newsletter with a quick analysis of the most important political news, and checks and balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist exploring the state of American democracy and the issues that are important to voters. Correction (February 11, 2025): The original version of this piece wrongly mentioned the laws that have been allocated billions of dollars, which Mr. Trump has now interrupted. It must have been the two -party infrastructure law of 2021 and the 2022 reduction Reduction Act. Sorry. © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. Of The Economist, published under license. The original content can be found on www.economist.com, capture all the politics of news and updates on live currency. Download the Mint News app to get daily market updates and live business news. More Topics #Donald Trump #Genitstate Mint Specials