I gather that congress required the creation of USAID and provided funds for it through the Foreign Assistance Act. Through that act the President is given power (and requirement?) to execute the mission, with a lot of rules to guide the execution. So if the USAID agency is being dismantled, is the President not still required to fulfill the mission of the Foreign Assistance Act?
Some examples from the text of the Foreign Assistance Act:
Title I — Development Loan Fund
The President shall establish a fund to be known as the "Development Loan Fund " to be used by the President to make loans pursuant to the authority contained in this title. (b) The President is authorized to make loans payable as to principal and interest in United States dollars on such terms and conditions as he may determine, in order to promote the economic development of less developed friendly countries and areas, with emphasis upon assisting long-range plans and programs designed to develop economic resources and increase productive capacities.
Title II — DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION
The President is authorized to furnish assistance on such terms and conditions as he may determine in order to promote the economic development of less developed friendly countries and areas, with emphasis upon assisting the development of human resources through such means as programs of technical cooperation and development.
I prefer thoughtful answers. And as always, lets keep things civil for the sake of the mods.
I think this sort of thing is what is being discussed when people talk about impoundment (the refusal by the President to spend money allocated by Congress). My understanding is that what Trump is doing is against the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but Trump claims that law is unconstitutional.
I expect that when this goes to the Supreme Court, even the conservative judges will see that giving the President such unconditional veto power is a bad idea. But then I also expected that even the conservative judges would have seen that giving the President the immunity that they gave him was a bad idea, so who knows…
Oh I wasn’t aware of impoundment. I’ll read up. Thank you!
The only remedy Congress ultimately has is impeachment, and we’ve already seen that’s not happening based on the previous attempts.
In addition to that, if Congress is fine with a law being broken by the President, they’ll just let them. Pretty much every President has violated the Leahy amendment for example.
Legally, no. But quibbles about ‘legality’ and ‘the Constitution’ mean nothing any more.
Looks like the law says the President shall establish the fund and is then authorized to administer the fund. So he is not required to loan the money out. So as long as the fund exists, the letter is the law is being followed.
The rest reads to me like he could lend the money out to Putin at 0% interest for 1000 years if he wanted. Although there could be other laws and definitions elsewhere that might prevent that.
