That’s the thing. When court orders go out to banks to seize accounts, etc. - then perhaps someone will sit up and listen. What’s Tump going to do - send troops to the Citibank data center to force them to unfreeze an account for some mid-level Marshall Service guy?
As we are in Factual Questions I will say only this (as it is clearly a fact): anyone counting on ‘what Trump did in his first term’ as being a limit on what he will do in his second term, is employing a type of reasoning that lacks respectability. (And further discussion would be more appropriate in another venue.)
Musk and Trump could pay for that indefinitely with the interest from their pocket change. That’s not an effective deterrent.
And who has signing authority to pay those fines?
With regards to the OP, “signing authority” is what it’s really all about.
Normally, Congress would create a new department, and task it with controlling the funds allocated, and then this department would be run under the supervision of the president’s executive branch. To really side-step a recalcitrant executive, what you’d need to do is create a new office that answers to Congress, and not the president. So, the real question is, can Congress do that?
Write a law that created this new office, and authorizes a committee of Congress members to oversee it. The committee hires a new head of the department, who reports directly to the committee. If possible, Congress authorizes a transfer of funds to this office, and they disburse it under their own authority, having been giving signing authority in their establishing act.
But, what if the executive can block that transfer of funds? You could also authorize the new office to take on debt up to a certain maximum, and use that money to carry out their job. You’d probably have to pay a premium for such loans, since it’s a given the executive would try to claim these debts are illegitimate, but that’s how I would go about it, if I was in charge of Congress and wanted to do an end-run around Trump.
They could, but you and I both know they wouldn’t.
[Moderating]
“What are the usual procedures for when the usual procedures break down?” is a question beyond the bounds of FQ. Moving to P&E.
There are only two things the President can do legally- veto the whole budget or spending bill, and temporarily slow down shipments.
If Congress votes aid, it will go to Ukraine. IF!
of course with new Congress and Trump, what makes you think that they’ll still help Ukraine?
Trump breaks the law routinely.
No Republicans hold him to account.
I think the intention was to pass something prior to them taking office, as a lame duck provision, and they want to structure it so that Trump et al. can’t screw with it afterwards.
Precedent:
In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees. Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.
More than a century later the Court decided Cooper v. Aaron. Nine Justices signed an order making clear that the Southern States had to follow Brown v. Board of Education and desegregate their schools. But neither nine judges nor nine thousand judges could have, by themselves, brought an end to racial segregation, imposed by law, in the South. Instead, the President, President Eisenhower, sent troops to enforce the Court’s order, not to defy it. And the Governor of Arkansas backed down, opening the doors of the segregated white school to the black children who wished to enter.
Source: Speeches - sp_05-19-03 - Supreme Court of the United States
Worcester v. Georgia - Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia
Cooper v. Aaron - Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia
Trump will walk in the footsteps of Jackson and not Eisenhower. Congress will capitulate to Trump.
remember that GOP controls House
As of January 3, 2025, the GOP controls the House and the Senate.
As of January 20, 2025, the GOP controls the White House, the House and the Senate.
Yea: 311
Nay: 112
So, a lot of House Republicans voted for Ukraine aid. 101 to be precise, about half. Remember Russia is deeply hated in America.
If Trump tells them to vote no, they’ll vote no.
Is it?
When the President of the US met in secret with Putin, then came out and said that he believed Putin’s vow of innocence over the considered verdict of the US intelligence establishment, were there massive protests and push-back in Congress about cozying up to the enemy?
When the President met in private with the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Secretary in the White House, and likely released high-quality intel to them, were there massive protests or push-back in Congress?
When the presidential candidate in 2016 called on Russia to illegally hack his opponent’s computer and release the contents, did that doom his election chances?
I have my doubts that Russia is widely hated. I’m not in the US, of course, but those three episodes stand out for me.
And yet Rick Scott is not Majority Leader.
That used to be the law but not since the 1970’s.
That was an anonymous vote. There is absolutely no way that Mike Johnson is going to put a Ukraine aid bill on the floor of the House and poison his relationship with Trump for the next four years.