and where does he get the power to do this.
all funding requests go through the house. not the white house.
It won't cost the taxpayers a dime. Think about it. You have to pay the government employee whether they work or not. If they aren't there because they are babysitting, there is no additional cost unless you hire a replacement. That won't be necessary because most government workers are non-essential and wouldn't be missed.
He gets the power from the vacuum created by the lack of Republican leadership.
The story says the maternity leave will be an "advance" on future earned leave. I do not know if there is precedent for this. I suspect not. I am aware that unused federal leave can be donated. This is fairly common. Federal employees get fairly lavish leave as it is. People are busy, they find it hard to get away, and leave stacks up. Agencies turn into ghost towns in December as employees in use or lose situations take off, and a great deal of leave is surrendered anyhow. In such situations, donating leave to a coworker with a major medical issue is eminently rational, as well as decent. But I have never heard of borrowing ahead. This would seem to me to involve an expenditure of funds for an as-yet unearned, future benefit, and I would think that would require statutory authority.
He probably may have the power to dictate the rules under which a government employee’s benefits are described and administered, but he doesn’t have the power to increase the funding under which it is executed. That’s the problem. The only way for the government agencies who have to administer the extra benefit to pay for it is through increased payroll deductions it charges all the employees.