It looks like an extreme stretch by the GAO, which is far from non-partisan. Under their logic there would be essentially no circumstance where the executive branch could even delay payment of foreign aid that had been appropriated by the congress. So, using their logic, once the congress votes to fund some overseas aid the aid gets sent regardless of events that might occur in the area of foreign policy. That's an absurd interpretation of the law.
Under the GAO interpretation, the executive branch would be forced to send previously appropriated military aid to a country even if, for example, the foreign government was ousted by rebels and replaced with a marxist dictatorship. Does anybody really think that is what the law requires?
Of course not, we're just seeing more Democratic party nonsense in their never ending efforts to attack President Trump.
The ICA separates impoundments into two exclusive categories—deferrals and rescissions. The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683.
But the deferral is a holding beyond the period when the spending authorization would expire, i.e. the fiscal year. THAT is when the President must send a deferral proposal. NOT just for a temporary hold. Otherwise the President would become a puppet of the House of Representatives, always sending deferral proposals for minor holds. The definition section of the law is quite explicit on this. When the president does not want to CANCEL the spending but anticipates the spending might span into the next fiscal year, then he would send a request to defer the spending into the next period. SHEESH!
I went and read the law and there’s a section on how many days the Congress HAS to take action on rescission requests, but not on notices of deferrals. Not a WORD about a temporary hold.
The President is NOT beholding to minor functionaries in his own branch’s decisions about when to spend money. HE is the one where “The Buck Stops Here,” not them. It is HIS authority that things are spent under, not some bureaucrat. Everything they do is under HIS direction. Not the other way around.
This is especially true where foreign affairs are concerned. CONGRESS HAS NO ROLE except to vote funds. They cannot micromanage the expenditure after that! This NEEDS to be ruled on by SCOTUS and found unconstitutional. . . Especially the part about the Department of Defense directly reporting its findings to Congress and then having THAT obligate the President to expend of funds for Foreign Affairs. That is DOUBLY unconstitutional on its very face.
That’s what I’ve been trying to point out to people. The Framers wisely put Foreign Affairs in the hands of a single person, the President, because they knew that such things can turn on a dime, while a committee, including Congress would act glacially. This is an effort by Congress to micromanage Foreign Affairs.
The budgetary items under discussion here were passed back in September 2018! The spending expired on September 30, 2919. . . and it was expended in large part before then.
A lot can happen in the 10 months between the aid being passed and July when the Ukraine Aid was put on hold while President Trump was taking the measure of Ukraine’s new president. The question before Trump was whether Zelensky was truly a reformer or just another corrupt thug like previous politicians elected to high office in Ukraine, playing musical chairs with the same corrupt officials, doing the same thing others had done before. Zelensky had been elected in April and had so far done nothing to show he was a reformer.