Tweet This
- Spending these funds would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a violation of federal law, an end run around Congress and a big step toward presidential anarchy.
- Spending these funds would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a violation of federal law, an end run around Congress and a big step toward presidential anarchy.
In one of the most frightening stories I've read since the start of the Trump presidency, The New York Times reported on Saturday that the administration is seriously considering paying for the new U.S. embassy it wants to build in Jerusalem with funds provided by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.
It's not clear whether the contribution was solicited by the White House or offered voluntarily by Adelson, who Forbes estimates is worth $40 billion. And it really doesn't matter: Spending these funds would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a violation of federal law, an end run around Congress and a big step toward presidential anarchy.
Let's take these in order.
The violations of the Constitution (You know, the thing Trump swore to uphold when he took the oath of office) are obvious. Article I, Section 8.1 gives Congress..and only Congress...the "power to lay and collect Taxes." Article I, Section 9.7 states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
In other words, the White House is prohibited from raising the funds for government functions in any way other than through tax laws and may only spend money on federal activities if the dollars are provided in an enacted appropriation. Not only does the president have no constitutional authority to raise and spend funds independently, he or she is specifically prohibited from doing exactly that.
The statutory violation is as clear. Congress and the president just -- as in less than three weeks ago -- enacted a law that sets limits on the amount that can be appropriated for both military and domestic spending. The Adelson funds would allow Trump to provide more than is allowed by the caps he just approved.
To say using other-than-appropriated funds for an embassy in Jerusalem would be an end run around Congress is stating the incredibly obvious. Without an appropriation, Congress won't be able to have an impact on anything having to do with the embassy. Beyond the funding question, Congress won't be able to express itself on the foreign policy and military issues that are involved and the administration could ignore federal contracting and construction standards, including cybersecurity. Congress either wouldn't know about or would be powerless to stop it.
But the scariest part is the other things Trump might want to do this way. If privately funding an embassy is possible, what would stop Trump or some future president from raising funds to finance and conduct a war with mercenaries? An oligarch-like president with deep-pocketed friends would be able to ignore the checks and balances set in the Constitution and the legislative process to do whatever he or she (and they) wanted to do.
Adelson is legally allowed to send his money to the Treasury as a gift, but he cannot designate what the government must do with it. Donated funds are deposited into general revenues and reduce the government's borrowing if they are not appropriated for something.
Congress can stop the Trump effort by including language in the funding bill needed by March 23 that will prohibit the White House, State Department, Treasury, Office of Management and Budget and everyone else from doing any planning for an embassy that is not funded through an appropriation.
We will all live to regret the consequences if the House and Senate don't take this type of specific and direct action.
