Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

 

Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

What to Know About Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency Over Federal Spending

The president can decline to spend money appropriated by Congress, with restrictions. Trump wants to reduce or clear away those restrictions.

Joseph Lord, congressional reporter for The Epoch Times 

The stage is set for a constitutional battle between President Donald Trump and a federal watchdog over the extent of presidential authority on spending, as Trump seeks to make sweeping federal spending and personnel cuts.

Trump and administration officials want to reduce existing restrictions on the president’s impoundment power, which allows a president to decline to spend money appropriated by Congress.

According to Trump, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—which requires the president to seek permission to rescind, or officially end, funding—violates the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Specifically, Trump argues that the chief executive has broad authority to interpret and make decisions about congressionally mandated spending—including the decision not to disburse funding.

His critics, meanwhile, say that the White House is transgressing Congress’s power of the purse.

Since taking office, Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have sought to identify and implement budget cuts, through actions such as shuttering or reorganizing federal agencies, mass staff reductions, and blocking funds.

In response, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the watchdog that oversees the Impoundment Control Act—has opened dozens of investigations into the executive branch.

The office issued its first finding on May 22, saying that the Department of Transportation had violated the impoundment law in its directive to revoke electric vehicle-related funding that had been mandated by Congress.

A series of lawsuits related to the issue is also pending in federal courts, meaning the issue could make its way to the Supreme Court.

Here’s what to know about the legal conflict and the potential court showdown.

Impoundment Use

In legal terms, impoundment refers to a situation in which the president declines to spend money appropriated by Congress.

It has been used often by presidents throughout history, beginning with President Thomas Jefferson.

In that instance, Congress called for the construction of 15 new gunboats at a cost of $50,000. Jefferson decided against it. In October 1803, in his third annual address, he informed Congress that the boats remained unconstructed and the money unspent.

The legislation had “authorized and empowered” Jefferson to build “a number not exceeding fifteen gunboats.”

Devin Watkins, an attorney at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, wrote that this was entirely within Jefferson’s power as Congress had not explicitly required him to spend the money or build the boats.

Supporters of presidential impoundment point to the unilateral decision as the basis for the practice in U.S. law.

In Kendall v. U.S. ex Rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court ruled that there were limits to the doctrine, however. The president could not unilaterally refuse to delegate funding when Congress’s intention was clear, the court found.

The issue has been barely litigated since then—meaning that many of the questions involved still haven’t been defined by the courts. Those questions primarily have to do with the separation of powers.

The Impoundment Control Act

Impoundment gained more attention during President Richard Nixon’s tenure in office.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 authorized federal funding to municipalities including New York City to combat water pollution.

Nixon initially vetoed the legislation. Congress overrode his veto by a two-thirds vote.

After the law was enacted, Nixon sought to block funding to New York City, prompting the city to sue.

In Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled 8–0 that Nixon had superseded his authority in refusing to disburse the funding.

Congress said that Nixon’s actions had crossed from the executive function into the policy-making function—a prerogative of Congress.

In response, it passed the Impoundment Control Act. It was the first legislative effort to define the limits between Congress and the president on the impoundment issue.

“[Impoundment] wasn’t an issue until Nixon made it an issue,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told The Epoch Times.

Watkins said that the perception of policy-making through impoundment was the main driver behind the 1974 law, in which Congress imposed new limits on the president’s power.

The law requires the president to send a rescission request to Congress if he wishes to reduce or alter spending previously required by Congress. Congress then has 45 days of continuous session to respond to the request.

Within that time, Congress must vote to either approve the president’s request and rescind the funding, or reject it, in which case the president is obligated to spend the funds as originally appropriated.

GAO Investigations and Lawsuits

The GAO says it’s investigating various moves made by Trump that may violate the legislation.

U.S. Comptroller General and GAO head Gene Dodaro told a Senate panel in April that 39 investigations into impoundment violations are currently open.

If any of those investigations yield evidence of violations of the Impoundment Control Act, the GAO could bring a suit against the administration.

In the past, Watkins said, Impoundment Control Act disputes have often arisen between the GAO and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A lot of times, what you see is this jousting between OMB and the GAO.”

Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the OMB, has been an outspoken critic of the Impoundment Control Act, vowing to work to strengthen the president’s impoundment power in Trump’s second term.

It’s rare for an impoundment issue to make it all the way to trial, however.

In the 1970s, the GAO brought a suit against President Gerald Ford for his use of impoundment in Staats v. Ford. However, the case was resolved before being litigated.

In Trump’s first term, he faced challenges from the GAO over his handling of federal funding related to the temporary impoundment of $214 million in military aid to Ukraine.

That act was referenced during the first impeachment proceedings against Trump, though the GAO didn’t file a lawsuit.

The GAO’s May 22 report marks the first escalation of the dispute.

That report centers around a Feb. 6 Transportation Department (DOT) announcement of a freeze on new electric vehicle infrastructure grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. That legislation appropriated $5 billion toward constructing new charging stations and other electric vehicle infrastructure as part of President Joe Biden’s push to phase out gas-powered vehicles.

The GAO said that the move to cancel funding appropriated by Congress is in violation of the 1974 law. It said the 2021 infrastructure law included a “mandate to spend,” so the department “is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program.”

The report said the administration needs to resume funding to comply with the law, but proposed that the department could also send a rescission request to Congress.

Responding to the findings, Vought posted on X that over the next few months, the GAO is “going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt.”

Other agencies besides the GAO have also brought suits against the Trump administration’s spending cuts and federal worker firings, arguing they are unlawful uses of impoundment.

Most of these have failed to result in court action.

One exception is State of Rhode Island v. Trump, an ongoing case involving a suit from 21 attorneys general, who argue that Trump’s sweeping executive moves to shrink the federal bureaucracy violate the Impoundment Control Act and other separation of powers laws.

A judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sued on similar grounds, contending that a Jan. 24 State Department notice suspending federal funding for refugee and asylum programs violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Both a temporary restraining order and an injunction were denied in this case.

Purse Strings and Executive Authority

Trump has made the case for broad presidential impoundment authority, saying it is simply a means for the president to exercise oversight on taxpayer funding.

“This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers,” Trump said in a 2024 campaign video. He vowed to attempt to overturn the Impoundment Control Act during his second term.

However, Democrats and other critics say that Trump’s use of impoundment transgresses congressional authority.

“From day one, President Trump has unilaterally frozen or contravened critical funding provided in our bipartisan laws,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during the April Senate hearing in which Dodaro testified.

“That is really not what the Constitution envisioned. Congress has the power of the purse period, our presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of a law that they can follow.”

Rahmani echoed Murray’s perspective, saying he disagrees with the argument that the Impoundment Control Act unfairly intercedes on executive authority.

“The bottom line is … Congress passes a law. The president can’t choose to ignore the law, especially when it comes to the appropriation of funds. So this is a pretty clear issue,” Rahmani said.

He suggested Republicans wouldn’t be as open to a Democrat exercising such power over funding.

In contrast, Watkins argued for a more expansive interpretation, noting that presidents throughout American history have refused to spend appropriated money for a variety of reasons.

The 1974 legislation could be interpreted as making changes to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, he said—which could render some components of the bill unconstitutional.

Congress foresaw this concern, stating in the opening to the legislation that nothing in it “assert[s] or conced[es] the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President.”

Watkins argued that the 1974 law was a legislative overcorrection “with significant interpretive challenges,” and proposed that the criteria for impoundment be based on whether Congress explicitly set terms around the use of funding.

Often when Congress appropriates funds, it doesn’t “specify either the amount of money or who that money should be going to, or when that money should be spent,” he said.

In less clear cases, he said, the presumption should be in favor of presidential authority.

Several congressional Republicans, meanwhile, are currently pursuing legislation that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act altogether.

However, that faces long odds in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would need to sign on for the legislation to pass.

Trump Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll

 

Trump Admin Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students

The DHS secretary posted the announcement on X.

Aaron Gifford, The Epoch Times 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revoked certification of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced on social media platform X on Thursday.

The decision prohibits Harvard from enrolling international students.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem wrote.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. “

Noem’s May 22 statement said a combination of infractions by Harvard, including collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and fostering an atmosphere of anti-Semitism, violence, and “pro-terrorist conduct from students on its campus,” led to this action.

The revocation also means existing foreign students must transfer to another school or lose their legal status, the statement said, adding that many of the agitators who harassed Jewish students, hosted and trained members of the CCP, and were complicit in the Uyghur genocide were from other nations.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem said.

Harvard University called the federal government’s action in this matter unlawful.

“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably,” Harvard University spokesman Jason Newton said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

The DHS terminated $2.7 million in grants to Harvard last month. Noem said university administrators refused to comply with her April 16 demands requesting information about “criminality and misconduct” of foreign students on its campus.

And, finally, Comey

And, finally, Comey

Byron York, Jewish World Review 

There has been a certain escalatory logic in the resistance to Donald Trump‘s rise to the presidency. In the very beginning, when few took him seriously, they laughed at him. Then they tried to defeat him in the 2016 election. Then, some frantically searched for a way to prevent him from taking office.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies spied on his campaign and opened an investigation into him. Then, they hoped the investigation would lead to impeachment, which would then lead to his removal. Then, when the Trump-Russia investigation conducted by former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller went bust, they turned on a dime and impeached Trump for something else.

Then, after Trump left office — he departed still awaiting trial on a second impeachment — a Democratic attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit to destroy his business empire. Then, a Democratic prosecutor in New York filed criminal charges over his businesses. Then, a Democratic prosecutor in Georgia indicted him over the 2020 election. Then, a prosecutor appointed by his successor's administration indicted him twice, once over the 2020 election and once for his handling of classified information.

Trump's adversaries dearly hoped the legal attacks, known as lawfare, would work — and by "work," they meant prevent him from becoming president again. But they didn't work, and Trump was elected again in 2024.

So, where could the escalatory logic go from there? They tried to stop him with ridicule, then at the ballot box, then with investigations, then with impeachment, then with lawsuits, then with indictments — and none of it worked. It wasn't brought up much in polite company, but everybody knew in the back of their minds that the next step was to kill him.

And so on July 13, 2024, a would-be assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, fired several shots at Trump. It was an absolute miracle that he was not killed. He was saved by a last-second turn of his head that meant the high-powered bullet clipped his ear but did not otherwise harm him. Had he turned his head any other way, he would have died instantly. One man in the audience was killed, and others were wounded. Secret Service agents killed the would-be assassin, about whom little is known, even after nearly a year.

Then, in September 2024, a man who had been planning for months to kill Trump was arrested in Florida after lying in wait with a rifle in the bushes by the course where Trump was playing golf. A Secret Service agent took a shot at him, he fled, and he was arrested later.

That brings the story to James Comey. In early 2017, when he was head of the FBI and when Trump was president-elect, Comey ambushed Trump with the false story that Trump watched, and was recorded on videotape, as prostitutes performed a kinky sex act in 2013 in a hotel room in Moscow. Comey worried, with good reason, that Trump would think he was "pulling a J. Edgar Hoover" on him. Indeed, that is exactly what Trump thought, after getting over his initial surprise. The Trump-Comey relationship went downhill from there, and Trump fired Comey in May 2017. Since then, Comey has been a pretty open resistance sympathizer.

On Thursday, Comey posted a picture on social media of shells arranged on a beach to make the number "8647." Comey wrote, "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."

The "8647" formulation is a resistance thing — the "86" being slang for dump, get rid of, or kill, and the "47" being Trump, the 47th president. In Trump's first term, when he was the 45th president, resistance types liked "8645." Back then, you could buy stickers and other stuff printed with "8645" on Amazon. There is a picture on social media of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) with an "8645" sign on her desk. Now, people can do the same thing with "8647."

In his post, Comey seemed to pretend that the photo was just a "cool shell formation," but he must have known what it meant. In any event, Trumpworld jumped into action, accusing the former head of the FBI of threatening to assassinate the president. Donald Trump Jr. posted an image of Comey's post with the comment, "Just James Comey casually calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!"

Then, the president himself weighed in. "He knew exactly what that meant," Trump told Fox News. "A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear."

So was Comey actually calling for Trump's assassination? He says no. He took down the "8647" post and wrote, "I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assume were a political message. I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down."

Comey seemed to be saying yes, he knew the shells were an anti-Trump message, but he thought it was a dump-Trump sort of thing and not a call to assassination. Indeed, that is how many in the resistance would view it. So, assume, even though after the things he did as FBI director, he doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt, that Comey was not calling for Trump to be killed.

On the other hand, in the context of last summer's assassination attempts, one could also say that "8647" has a new, and even darker, meaning. One can't casually call to "get rid" of Trump without the knowledge that there are some out there, resistance sympathizers, who would like to accomplish that with a gun. So using "8647" today has a sinister, post-Butler feel to it — more so than before an assassin took shots at Trump. In any event, it is remarkably irresponsible for a former head of the FBI to do something such as that.

Okay to Deport Venezuelan Illegals

 

SCOTUS Lifts Injunction on Deporting Venezuelan Illegals

State of the Union: The lower-court injunction staying deportations affected 350,000 Venezuelan nationals in the U.S.

Joseph Addington, The American Conservative 

The Supreme Court handed down a brief order Monday staying an injunction that prevented Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from revoking the Temporary Protective Status (TPS) that prevented Venezuelans illegally living in the U.S. from being deported. 

The injunction was issued by Senior District Court Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, who agreed with the plaintiffs—the National TPS Alliance—in finding that Noem’s order to revoke was motivated by racial animus. “Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote.

The government is appealing the decision and requested a stay of injunction from the Supreme Court, which granted the stay pending appeal. The court’s order will allow the Trump administration to begin deporting the more than 350,000 Venezuelans currently living in the country illegally.

Marco Rubio To Close Palestinian Embassy

 

Marco Rubio To Close State Department's

De Facto Palestinian Embassy

The Office of Palestinian Affairs, a Joe Biden creation, urged Israel not to respond to Hamas's October 7 attack

Adam Kredo, Free Beacon 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio will dissolve the State Department’s Office of Palestinian Affairs (OPA), a Biden-era creation that elevated relations with the Palestinian Authority, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Rubio directed newly installed U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee to merge the independent diplomatic office and its responsibilities, including outreach to the Palestinians, with the American embassy in Jerusalem, U.S. officials and congressional sources briefed on the matter confirmed to the Free Beacon. The decision is meant to restore the Trump administration’s first-term vision for a unified U.S. diplomatic mission in Israel’s capital that reports directly to the ambassador.

The office repeatedly earned the ire of Republican lawmakers for its anti-Israel advocacy during the Biden-Harris administration. In the early hours of Hamas’s October 7 attack, the OPA called on Israel to stand down and forgo any retaliation. Subsequent legislation sought to rein in the office, mandating it periodically report on its public diplomacy and advocacy efforts.

The Biden administration created the OPA in June 2022 against Israel’s wishes, endowing it with the power to operate independently of the American embassy. It has come under fire in the past for its potential violation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which mandated that a single U.S. embassy be established in the Israeli capital.

As a senator, Rubio helped lead the charge against the Palestinian affairs office and the Biden administration’s efforts to ramp up diplomacy with the Palestinian government in the years prior to Hamas’s October 7 attack.

He and a coalition of more than 80 lawmakers raised concerns that the diplomatic outpost was meant to erode President Donald Trump’s decision in his first term to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital and move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv.

By opening the Office of Palestinian Affairs, the Biden-Harris administration signaled that Jerusalem could again be divided under a future peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel

"Let there be no misunderstanding: this unprecedented arrangement—to turn the Palestinian Affairs Unit into a ‘U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs’ that will no longer report to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel but instead report directly to the State Department in Washington, D.C., and to appoint a Special Envoy to the Palestinians—is an effort to open an unofficial and de facto U.S. consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem," Rubio and his colleagues wrote June 2022 letter to the Biden administration.

Rubio will eliminate the position of Special Envoy to the Palestinians alongside the OPA.

Senator Bill Hagerty (R., Tenn.), who partnered with Rubio in the 2022 push to shutter OPA, described the decision as key to enforcing Trump's vision of a unified Jerusalem.

"I welcome Secretary Rubio's efforts in the second Trump administration to reinforce President Trump's historic first-term decision to fully implement the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's eternal and indivisible capital of Jerusalem," Hagerty told the Free Beacon. "During the Biden years, I was proud to defeat the Biden administration's inflammatory plan to reverse President Trump's decision and their effort to undermine the sovereignty of our ally Israel by turning the U.S. Embassy's Office of Palestinian Affairs into a second U.S. mission in Jerusalem."

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R., La.) also told the Free Beacon he approves of the move.

"I was a strong supporter of President Trump's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and was outraged when the Biden administration sought to undermine President Trump's historic move," he said. "I am glad to hear that the Trump administration plans to reverse course and restore the vital role of Ambassador Huckabee and important policy coordination in Jerusalem. I am grateful to Secretary Rubio for taking this step to support our great ally and friend, Israel. Under President Trump's leadership, the United States is once again a nation that promotes democratic values, stands up for our allies, and projects strength on the world stage."

Huckabee will implement Rubio’s order in the coming weeks, according to those briefed on the matter.

The OPA is one of many diplomatic outposts being shuttered or restructured as part of a massive overhaul meant to ensure the State Department aligns with Trump's foreign policy aims.

CCP cash flows to Berkeley

 

CCP cash flows to Berkeley 

UC Berkeley Received Six-Figure Donations From CCP Officials, Records Show

Alana Goodman, Free Beacon 

The University of California, Berkeley, received donations from a blacklisted Chinese research university, Chinese Communist Party officials, and a Beijing state-owned chemical company, according to records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The news comes days after the Trump administration launched an investigation into UC Berkeley for allegedly failing to disclose funding from China, including a $220 million government investment in Berkeley’s joint research institution with Tsinghua University.

Donor records obtained through a California public information request provide new details on Berkeley’s financial relationship with China and foreign government-linked donors.

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires that American universities disclose the names and locations of foreign donors to the federal government. For four years, the Biden administration failed to strictly enforce the law and withheld donor names from the American public. As the Free Beacon reported, President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month requiring more thorough disclosures.

The Berkeley records demonstrate that the administration’s more aggressive approach to foreign higher education donations appears likely to reveal unsavory financial backers.

One of the university’s donors is the University of Science and Technology of China, which gave Berkeley $60,000 for its chemistry program in 2023. A year after the donation, the U.S. Department of Commerce added USTC to its sanctions list for "acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of advancing China's quantum technology capabilities, which has serious ramifications for U.S. national security given the military applications of quantum technologies."

Berkeley also received $336,000 for its "research units" in 2023 from Vincent Cheung Sai Sing, a longtime member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference for Shanghai City, an advisory body to the Chinese Communist Party.

The GS Charity Foundation Limited, the charitable arm of the Glorious Sun Group, gave $160,000 to Berkeley for international studies research in 2023. The Glorious Sun Group’s chairman, Charles Yeung, was also a member of the CCP national people’s committee.

Duane Ziping Kuang, the founding managing partner of China-based venture capital firm Qiming Venture Partners, gave $75,000 to Berkeley’s business school. His firm was an early investor in ByteDance.

Several universities have listed gifts from China-linked donors as coming from other countries, as the Free Beacon has previously reported. Berkeley reported numerous donations from PRC-associated individuals as originating elsewhere.

Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire founder of CK Hutchison, donated $5.7 million to Berkeley’s biological sciences division in 2023.  The funding was reported as coming from Canada, where Li Ka-shing has a foundation.

Li, whose business empire has deep ties to the Chinese government, is at the center of the U.S.-China trade dispute over the Panama Canal.

President Trump has cited CK Hutchinson’s ownership of the waterway’s port operations as evidence that China is "operating the Panama Canal," and vowed to take it back. The Chinese government, meanwhile, threatened to cripple Li’s business interests if he went forward with a plan to sell his Panama Canal operations to a consortium led by BlackRock.

In 2023 and 2024, Berkeley reported receiving $50,000 from Sky9 Capital Fund V in the Cayman Islands. Sky9 Capital, a China-focused venture capital fund, has financed ByteDance, TikTok, Meituan, and other companies closely associated with the CCP.

Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned company, donated $21,000 to Berkeley’s Rausser College of Natural Resources in 2022. The university listed the money as coming from Switzerland, where Syngenta is headquartered.

A spokesman for Berkeley declined to comment on the specific donations. He said the university is "reviewing the Department of Education inquiry and will cooperate with its federal partners as has long been our practice. The university prioritizes direct communications with legislative committees and governmental agencies when responding to their questions and inquiries."