Replies

I read that law in detail. (IANAL)

The Act allows the President to delay Congressionally-prescribed spending up to 45 days for the purpose of requesting Congress rescind the order to spend. If Congress does not rescind spending within that 45 day period, the legislated spending is not and can not be rescinded; the President is obligated to commence spending accordingly.

Note that the _purpose_ of the 45 days is to allow President to request and Congress to rescind the spending. There is nothing actually obligating President to send a request to Congress (I’d assume “time to consider asking” is allowed for the delay), only that if it does get rescinded Congress must complete the process within 45 days of the start of the spending delay.

Democrats are construing this as “President is criminally violating law if he doesn’t commence the spending within 45 days”.
That’s not the case.

The law in question then states that IF the President does not commence the spending in 45 days, the Comptroller General _may_ bring civil suit to compel the spending - and must give Congress 25 days notice before doing so.
This did not happen.

Instead of following the prescribed process for compelling legislated spending, Democrats leapt to “abuse of power!” rather waiting the minimum 70 days before obligating Trump to explain himself to a judge.

Trump began the legislated Ukrainian military spending after a 48 day delay.
The 45 days can be construed as “time to think about issues supporting request of rescindment”.
The next 3 days were legal limbo: there is no compulsion to spend, but began the period where Comptroller General was empowered (but did not act) to say “get on with it or I’ll sue”. CG having not moved, and spending having commenced, the delay is not legally problematic.

There is no problem. The alleged accusation is little more than the law stating “well get on with it already”, nothing actionable beyond allowing the unused power to increase pressure on the Executive to spend as directed.