A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
The Trump administration is continuing to test how much power Congress is willing to hand over to the president. And last week, the Supreme Court gave the administration further permission to do so. Congress had approved $4 billion in foreign aid, but the court's conservative majority ruled that for now, the Trump administration does not have to spend the money. It's a move called a pocket rescission. That's different from a normal rescission request, which must be approved by Congress.
So now those previously appropriated funds will simply expire. So what's all of this mean for lawmakers trying to agree on a spending deal to avoid a government shutdown that could be just a few days away? For this, we called Brendan Buck. He's a GOP strategist who worked for two Republican House speakers. So, Brendan, what's this ruling from the Supreme Court mean for Congress' spending authority, at least for now, at least?
BRENDAN BUCK: Well, I think it means it's up to them to stand up to themselves. The Supreme Court basically said the people who are suing over this just simply didn't have standing. They didn't rule on the merits. And ultimately, I think, at this point Congress needs to say, not only is it our constitutional responsibility to decide how spending is allocated, but these are laws. Congress has passed a law saying that this $4 billion needs to go to these purposes. And the president simply shouldn't have the authority to ignore that law, and that's what he's trying to do right now.
MARTÍNEZ: So with this spending deal that could lead to a government shutdown, say if Democrats sign off on particulars on a deal, what's to stop the president from another pocket rescission, especially since he seems to have the Supreme Court's backing?
BUCK: Yeah, I think that's the stakes here. It's the precedent that they're setting here. This is a relatively small amount of money. But if the president is able to do this and establish that if you put in one of these rescissions requests right at the end of the year, which is what they're doing right now and trying to sort of game the calendar to say that Congress doesn't need to act, I don't think there's any question that he'll come back next year, at the end of next fiscal year, with a much larger package and basically point back to this precedent that they set.
So I think it is in the interest of not just Democrats, but Republicans as well, to protect their institution. Include language in this funding package that simply says, you can submit a rescissions request, but it needs to be done in a timely manner so that Congress has time to act on it. Because what he's trying to do right now is let the clock run out and just put up his hands and say, you guys didn't vote. I have no option but not to spend it.
MARTÍNEZ: How binding would that language be?
BUCK: If it's put in law, I think it would be very clarifying. They're trying to use a loophole in what's called the Impoundment Control Act from 1974, which allows presidents to make requests to cancel funds. But they've always required Congress to vote affirmatively to back up that request. What they're doing now is using the end of the fiscal year.
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah.
BUCK: Congress has the deadline. Money can't be spent outside of the fiscal year that it's offered in. And so what they've done is put this request in right at the end of the fiscal year. If they clarify that the law says you can only put in these requests long enough ahead of a fiscal year that we have time to act, I think that would make the courts look at this very differently.
MARTÍNEZ: Even courts that are (laughter) appointed by Donald Trump? I mean, he's got a bit of a majority in his favor.
BUCK: They haven't even ruled on the merits on this, actually. And I have a sense that if the merits were considered that he might lose. The challenge is that only one person has standing to sue in these court cases, and that's the GAO, head of the Government Accountability Office. And they haven't done that.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, you wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times spelling out how pocket rescissions could backfire on Republicans in the future. How so?
BUCK: Absolutely. I mean, you should have some principle and interest in protecting your own institution. But even if you're just looking at it selfishly, if you're a Republican and a future Democratic president comes in and says, well, we're just not going to spend money on - my examples are immigration enforcement or some military spending. I think you're probably going to look at this very differently. So it's not just this $4 billion, $5 billion in the short term. You've got to think about the long-term precedent that you're setting, how presidents can take away your power. Congress writes a law, says we're going to spend something, and just because there's this little quirk in this 1974 law that says they can request to get rid of it at the end of the year, and you just look the other way. I think that is really eroding their power. And they should think about not just what's right in front of them.
MARTÍNEZ: The president is having some meetings with some members of Congress to kind of hash out this deal. About 20 seconds to go, Brendan. Is a shutdown inevitable at this point?
BUCK: It sure feels like it. Republicans don't seem like they have any real reason to negotiate at this point because they seem to have the upper hand. And Democrats, I think, kind of feel like they need to show that they're willing to fight. So both sides will probably have a shutdown. I'm hoping it doesn't last very long, but that looks like where we're headed.
MARTÍNEZ: That's Republican strategist Brendan Buck. Brendan, thanks.
BUCK: You got it. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
