By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst the government shutdown, President Trump authorized military personnel paychecks, despite the absence of congressional approval, raising concerns about the legality of the move. Experts have warned that this decision could set a precedent for the president to unilaterally allocate funds, potentially undermining Congress’s authority over government spending. This action involves repurposing defense funds and accepting private donations to pay troops, which legal analysts have deemed questionable under federal law. Furthermore, this situation could exacerbate the existing political tensions, potentially complicating future budget agreements and affecting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Read the original article here
Trump’s move to pay troops amid a shutdown sparks a flurry of concerns, with many experts sounding the alarm about the potentially dangerous precedents being set. The core issue revolves around the implications of a president essentially circumventing Congress’s power of the purse by ensuring military personnel receive paychecks, even when a government shutdown is in effect. This action, widely considered illegal, could open the door for future unilateral funding of other controversial initiatives, significantly undermining the checks and balances designed to prevent governmental overreach.
The central fear is that this move could be interpreted as a blatant attempt to buy loyalty. Paying the troops, a group often seen as politically untouchable, during a shutdown appears to be a calculated maneuver to secure their favor. Some suggest that this is a way for Trump to ensure the military remains loyal to him, particularly as he faces increasing scrutiny and political challenges. Concerns are raised that such actions might pave the way for a private, almost mercenary, approach to the military, blurring the lines between public service and personal allegiance.
A primary criticism centers on the potential erosion of Congress’s role. If a president can simply bypass Congress and fund specific areas of government, it weakens the legislative branch’s ability to control spending. This is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. system of government, and any erosion could lead to a concentration of power in the executive branch. This sets a dangerous precedent where future presidents might exploit similar tactics to fund their own priorities, regardless of congressional approval. This could encompass the deployment of troops within the U.S., or other contentious decisions.
The legality of Trump’s actions is also a focal point. Many legal experts have labeled the decision as “super duper duper illegal,” citing federal laws that restrict how government funds can be allocated. The lack of legal consequence may further embolden such behavior, as it signals that the law no longer matters. If these actions are left unchecked, it may be perceived as though the president is operating outside the law, further undermining the constitutional order.
The financing of this action is also raising eyebrows. The suggestion that private donations are being used to cover military salaries adds another layer of complexity. The potential for foreign entities or wealthy individuals to influence the military through financial contributions is a significant concern. The idea of a privately funded military raises questions about whose interests the armed forces will serve. It opens up the possibility of external influences, potentially compromising the military’s impartiality and its allegiance to the Constitution.
The amounts involved in these private donations also raise skepticism. The relatively small sum of money, divided among the large number of military personnel, leads many to question the actual impact. Instead of purchasing loyalty, the concern centers on the optics of the situation, the implication that a president would even attempt such a strategy. The allocation of funds is also a point of confusion; some fear it could be funneled into weaponry or towards the president’s inner circle within the military.
The historical context is important too. A move to circumvent Congress, especially when combined with a seemingly partisan goal, is reminiscent of past political maneuvers that contributed to the decline of democracies. Some are quick to compare this situation to the late Roman Empire, where the military’s allegiance to individual leaders became more important than its loyalty to the state. The fear is that the U.S. is heading down a similar path.
The underlying sentiment is one of deep concern regarding the direction in which the country is heading. The perceived disregard for established norms and the willingness to test the boundaries of presidential power are alarming. Many feel that the current political climate is eroding democratic institutions, setting the stage for more authoritarian tendencies. This move is seen as another example of how the Republican Party is aiding and abetting the potential for a dangerous, private control of the armed forces, while simultaneously eroding the balance of power.