Hacker News
points by jeremyjh 2 days ago | 0 comments
When it comes to government spending programs, according to our constitution the elections that have consequences are those for seats in Congress. The executive doesn’t have the authority to cancel USAIDs funding, nor the funding of specific programs within it.

On top of that, the executive has a responsibility to plan its work ahead of time and make such plans known before enacting them.

There are many cases currently in litigation regarding these failures.

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
> The executive doesn’t have the authority to cancel USAIDs funding, nor the funding of specific programs within it

But funding is provided in annual appropriations bills, and Congress has since enacted appropriations bills that allocate funds directly to the state department.

That’s why the USAID litigation has not been very successful. The best legal argument is that the executive can’t cancel funding Congress has specifically allocated to an agency. But Congress eliminated that argument.

[–] jeremyjh 2 days ago
No, those are the talking points you are fed. The appropriation act assigns specific dollar amounts to specific program types and countries or regions. US AID would allocate to specific providers/NGO programs but its not like there were any substitutions made. They just stopped the flow of dollars with no warning. More than 81% of programs were simply stopped and the funds expired without being spent.

For 2025 there was a continuing resolution to keep funding at 2024 levels.

The 2024 bill[1] section 7019 references the state division document[2], which has the spending by category, the tables start on page 20.

[1] - http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/WDI39597.PDF

[2] - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/Division%20F%2...

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
But in mid-2025 there was a bill that rescinded already appropriated funds: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4

And for 2026 the appropriations bills allocated the money directly to the state department.

[–] jeremyjh 2 days ago
Yes, after the laws were broken congress said daddy Trump can break laws. But they didn't rescind everything. $4B expired because it was unspent. That is a crime, and it has name, and that name is impoundment.

Also, are you going to even acknowledge that your previous deflections were completely incorrect, and that you just reflexively moved to a new deflection that is also incorrect?

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
> Yes, after the laws were broken congress said daddy Trump can break laws

The impoundment control act specifically provides for Congress to resend previously appropriate spending if the president doesn’t want to spend it. nothing in the empowerment control act that clearly prevents the president from freezing spending for a short period within a single given budget year before asking Congress to resend particular appropriations.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
You just can't do it, can you? Take the L man, you just got schooled and you refuse to admit it.
[–] rayiner 2 days ago
You are mistaken about how the impoundment process works.
[–] bosshawg 2 days ago
> > are you going to even acknowledge that your previous deflections were completely incorrect