Washington- The relationship between the legislative and executive authorities witnessed a new test of the constitutional balance after it was believed The US House of Representatives Last Friday, on a package to reduce the financing of foreign aid and public broadcasting worth 9 billion dollars, the president’s administration was Donald Trump Last June, it was pushed through a rare legal mechanism whose roots date back to the post -scandal period.Watergate“.
This step – which is described as a “legislative victory” of Trump – is based on the “temporary detention of financing” law, which was approved in 1974 with the aim of curbing the excesses of the former president Richard Nixon When he refrained from implementing the spending decisions approved by Congress.
Today, Trump reactifies this law, not as a tool for coordination with Congress As the legislators wanted in the seventies, but rather as a way to freeze the implementation of some financial credits temporarily, pending the provision of the majority needed to cancel it.
Decree
Although the law imposes a deadline not exceeding 45 days to make decisions, some experts indicate that the American administration started to freeze funds before submitting the request formally to cancel, in an attempt to impose a fait accompli that contributes to passing the presidential agenda despite the potential opposition within Congress.
The Trump administration considered the move as a victory in the battle to reform public spending, describing the pass of the law as an important step towards controlling national spending, according to the director of the Budget Administration Office, Ross Foot, who said, “We are happy to go to the fullest extent to achieving this.”
David Super, a specialist in administrative law, constitutional law and budget legislation at Georgetown University, believes that what Trump did is not in line with the requirements of the temporary detention law, but rather a technical exploitation of the legal deadline to impose a fait accompli.
Super adds to Al -Jazeera Net that he froze money without permission from Congress, then he sought to justify this later with an official request that came too late, and “this is a violation of the law.”
9 billion dollars include a small percentage of the general federal budget of 6.8 trillion dollars, and is concerned with programs for external aid, public broadcasting and some educational initiatives.
While Josh Shaveitz, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University – in terms of principle – opposes the policies included in the package, he does not see in passing it a prejudice to the principle of separation of powers.
He said that what happened does not constitute an executive seduction of Congress, but rather represents an implementation of its constitutional powers, as the cancellation occurred by voting in the House of Representatives andThe elders According to what is permissible by the 1974 law.
Speaking to Al -Jazeera Net, Shafitz continues that what raises the most anxiety is not the passage of the current package because it followed the legislative path, but rather the many previous practices in which the administration is illegal to delay the exchange, which affects the essence of Congress control over public money.
Repeated pattern
This legal debate brings back a similar precedent in 2019 when Trump declared a state of national emergency to transfer designated financing Lbanta Towards building the border wall, after Congress refused to finance the project.
Resort White House At that time, to the use of exceptional powers to overcome the legislative will, which resulted in actual reduction of federal budgets without passing the approval of Congress.
This repeated dynamic raises more questions whether the Trump administration is moving towards reformulating the relationship between the presidency and the Congress, especially in light of expectations that this approach will be used again in other controversial financing files.
David Super believes that both cases reveal a repeated pattern of President Trump based on the exploitation of legal tools that appear to weaken the role of Congress in determining the priorities of spending, as during his first term he was keen to add a legal cover – even if he was formally – his movements, but today he has explicitly ignored federal laws in areas that exceed the budget to civil service and customs definitions and others.
“Trump may now feel safe from political accountability after winning a second term, or because he reshaped the Supreme Court in a way that makes him more confident in passing his agenda without judicial obstacles,” he added.
Welcome and warning
On the other hand, Eli Bremer is defending the Republican leader and former Senate’s candidate for Colorado for Trump’s move.
Bremer stressed – in a statement to Al -Jazeera Net – that the use of a law dating back to 50 years does not lose his legitimacy, and says, “There is a group that loves to photograph anything that Trump does as illegal, only because it differs with its agenda.”
He added, “I do not see any harm in any administration to resort to what is available in the law to achieve its priorities as long as this is done in an institutional and public framework. Democrats may use the same method in climate -related issues, for example, or other programs.”
Although the Republicans celebrated the passing of the package as a “victory for financial discipline”, some votes warned that this precedent may open the door to similar reactions from Democratic PartyThis will weaken future cooperation between the two parties and lead to the exacerbation of polarization and chaos in the process of adopting budgets.
Ashley believes a member Republican Party In Florida, Trump is trying to challenge Congress through this law, pointing to the incident of 2020 when his administration froze a funding that was directed to Ukraine, which was then considered a violation of the law.
Ansar adds in his interview with Al -Jazeera Net, “The real question arises: What will happen if Democrats regain the majority in the upcoming elections? Business renewal elections Next.