meeks, Gregory Rep d n y

===

-=-=

Oct. 5, 2026,

Throughout American history, officials have recognized that Congress has what’s known as “the power of the purse.” In our constitutional system, it’s lawmakers who have the sole authority to dictate government spending. It’s designed this way for a reason: As the editorial board of The New York Times explained last fall, “Money is power, and the founders of this country feared that a president would turn into a monarch if he alone could dictate how the government uses the federal Treasury.”

It’s a model that Donald Trump has never been altogether comfortable with. Indeed, Russell Vought, who leads the president’s White House budget office, made clear during his Senate confirmation hearings early last year that he believes in an executive branch that has vast powers when it comes to federal spending.

He clearly meant what he said. Consider three examples that emerged over the course of a week.

On Friday, Sept. 25, the White House decided unilaterally to cut nearly $1 billion in domestic spending appropriated by Congress, executing a tactic known as a “pocket rescission.” Days later, the Government Accountability Office reaffirmed its stance that this is illegal, and Team Trump said it didn’t care.

On Wednesday, Sept. 30, the Trump administration redirected tens of millions of dollars in U.S. military assistance from European and Middle Eastern countries to reward conservative governments in Latin America.

As The Washington Post reported, the State Department notified Congress of its intention to do so last month, at which point the top Democrats on the House and Senate foreign affairs committees placed a hold on the diversion of funds. Last week, the administration decided it would proceed with its plan anyway.

In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday, the two Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, describing the move as a violation of statutory requirements about where the money could go. Team Trump apparently didn’t care about this, either.

On Friday, Oct. 2, the Times reported that the National Science Foundation, one of the biggest sources of federal research funding, withheld $1.4 billion that Congress had intended for research over the course of the past year as part of a brazen effort to circumvent Congress.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, said, “The money should be granted as Congress intended, and essentially, they’re ignoring what Congress did.”

Or more to the point, they’re ignoring what Congress did again.

Trump uses rare authority to claw back nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress

-=-=

an badash 3 25

Facing a midnight Friday deadline to prevent a federal government shutdown if no budget is passed, the Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, insists he has the votes to secure a continuing resolution, a “CR,” and without any help from Democrats. Democrats have vowed to oppose the measure, citing its spending cuts to health care and veterans’ benefits, as well as the inclusion of controversial policy provisions — despite Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole’s specific claim to the contrary.

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Monday wrote: “House Republicans want to gut Medicaid. Hard pass.”

IFrame Content

“The 99 page bill continues funding levels for federal agencies through September 30, 2025,” NPR reports. “GOP leaders argued the bill was largely a ‘clean’ continuation of current funding levels, but it does include a boost for immigration enforcement and a boost for defense programs.”

It also includes a little-noticed provision, however, that, according to one longtime congressional staffer, “preemptively surrenders” Congress’s constitutional authority to block President Donald Trump’s highly controversial and unpredictable tariffs, which he appears to be imposing and rescinding on a whim.

Here’s how one noted economist explained President Trump’s tariffs on Tuesday:

“Tariffs are on/off/paused, and are targeted/universal, applied to our friends/foes/everyone, starting sooner/later. They’ll be in place for the short/long run because they are a useful policy/bargaining chip, and will solve our problem with fentanyl/deficits/manufacturing/revenue,” wrote Justin Wolfers a professor of economics and public policy.

Meanwhile, that provision House Republicans quietly inserted into the bill that at least temporarily would revoke their authority is now getting some attention.

“Republicans snuck a provision into the rule for the CR that would preemptively surrender congressional authority to block tariffs,” observes Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). “When House Republicans vote for this rule today, they will also be voting to support Trump’s tariffs and all the resulting damage to the US economy.”

Congressman Beyer, in a joint statement with U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), blasted the rule:

“”Every House Republican who votes for this measure is voting to give Trump expanded powers to raise taxes on American households through tariffs with full knowledge of how he is using those powers, and every Republican will own the economic consequences of that vote. It speaks volumes that Republicans are sneaking this provision into a procedural measure hidden from the American people.”

“While [Trump] babbles about making Canada the 51st state, your groceries and housing are getting more expensive and your retirement accounts are getting crushed- and House Republicans are supporting him every step of the way.”

The provision might be able to be removed if the House voted to do so after the CR is passed, but chances of that happening — voting to oppose a core tenet of Trump’s agenda — are slim if the GOP holds the House majority. Trump would also have to sign the bill, or the House would have to overturn a veto.

Some House Democrats are explaining their opposition to other provisions in the continuing resolution, which one of them, U.S. Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL), appears to compare to an exercise in bondage.

“I don’t know whether the GOP will get the votes on their disaster of a bill this week. But I do know that majorities of Republicans voted against similar bills for all of the last 2 years. So what is making them strap on the ball gag and climb into Trump’s dungeon now?” Congressman Casten wrote on social media.

Noting that “Congress has the Constitutional power of the purse and has reaffirmed it through multiple laws (Impoundment Control Act, Anti-Rescission Act) that are being used by multiple courts to block the WH’s over-reach,” Casten warns that the CR “has language that would weaken those cases.”

“This is what you do to cower before a mad king. It is not what you do if you are defending a constitutional democracy,” he declares.

And continuing his explanation for opposing the bill — and continuing his ribald language, Casten notes that the bill “would cut ~$28 billion in funding we passed under the PACT Act to make sure veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and toxic burn pits get healthcare coverage. P---ing on US veterans is a choice.”

There’s more.

“It would slash funding for USDA food inspectors. You know, the people who go into monitor the spread of avian flu, or to make sure you don’t have E. Coli in your lettuce,” he writes.

“It gives the White House much more discretion over public-private partnerships, essentially allowing them to prioritize infrastructure projects (highways, rail, etc.) only in their political supporters communities. That is anti-American, in the purest sense,” says Casten.

“It cuts rent subsidies for low-income folks. Which means a whole lot of landlords are going to find themselves forced to evict some ~32,000 families. If you think your community needs more homelessness, that’s a good idea. Otherwise… really f’ing dumb.”

Congressman Casten concludes, “Here’s the bottom line. When faced with a constitutional crisis, some members of Congress are fighting back. Others are strapping on the ball gag, climbing into Trump’s dungeon and assuming the American people share their masochistic fetish.”

Casten also includes in his analogy Fritschner’s observation about stopping their ability to block Trump’s tariff’s. He responds: “This is how you legislatively mandate the ball gag.”

See the video above or at this link.

---

an 3 25

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is now hoping to sneak through language in a must-pass government funding bill that could kneecap Congress' ability to check a president's ability to impose tariffs.

According to a Tuesday article in Politico, Republicans are now aiming to prevent Democrats from forcing an up-or-down vote on President Donald Trump's controversial tariffs. The threat of double-digit tariffs on imported goods from Canada, China and Mexico has already spooked investors worried about a dip in consumer spending. This has resulted in a sharp slide in financial markets, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Nasdaq Composite and the S&P 500 all recently posting some of their worst performances in years.

Trump has imposed the tariffs based on a national state of emergency he declared shortly after taking office relating to fentanyl and undocumented immigrants coming across the U.S. border. Politico is reporting that Democrats have already filed bills aiming to end that national emergency, which could force Republicans to go on the record defending the tariffs ahead of what's likely to be a close midterm election year.

Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Gregory Meeks (R-N.Y.) observed that the National Emergencies Act "allows Congress to introduce a privileged resolution to terminate the authority, which must be brought to the House for a floor vote within 15 days." In order to circumvent Democrats, Republicans have since inserted language into a bill that has to pass in order to keep the government funded that prevents a vote to end the national emergency.

Politico reported that Republicans aim to declare that the remaining days in the first session of the 119th Congress "no not qualify as calendar days" in order to prevent DelBene's and Meeks' privileged resolutions from moving forward. This would serve as a loophole around the National Emergencies Act that makes it so Democrats can't force their opponents to go on the record defending the costly tariffs.

"Guess what [Republicans] tucked into this rule, hoping that nobody would notice?” House Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. "They slipped in a little clause letting them escape ever having to debate or vote on Trump’s tariffs. Isn’t that clever?"

Republicans have defended the measure by saying it "simply prevents the Democrats from limiting the president’s authority." But Democrats say passing the bill with that rule included would make it virtually impossible for Congress to have a say in tariff policy. Congress aims to vote on the rule Tuesday evening.

Click here to read Politico's report in full.

---

an 9 24

Even though he said he's willing to testify, House Republicans are still likely to vote in favor of holding one of President Joe Biden's Cabinet secretaries in contempt of Congress.

Politico reported Tuesday that Republicans are aiming to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt, claiming he is obstructing their duty to investigate the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) accused Blinken of failing to comply with a subpoena issued on September 18 to testify today, while Blinken is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

“I wish we were not here today. However, Secretary of State Antony Blinken brought this upon himself,” McCaul said. “I take no joy in this procedure.”

READ MORE:['Cease fire now!' Blinken testimony repeatedly interrupted by protesters against military aid to Israel

In a letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this week, Blinken emphasized that he was "willing to testify" but that his job as the United States' top diplomat required him to be at the United Nations. Blinken is expected to speak at the UNGA about the Biden administration's ongoing efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza and return hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, as well as about the United States' efforts to aid Ukraine in its war with Russia.

"I am profoundly disappointed you have once again chosen to send me a subpoena and threaten contempt, rather than engage with me and the department in a meaningful way to resolve this matter through the constitutionally-mandated accommodation process," Blinken wrote. "As I have made clear, I am willing to testify and have offered several reasonable alternatives to the dates unilaterally demanded by the Committee during which I am carrying out the President's important foreign policy objectives."

McCaul insisted that he made "numerous, good-faith" attempts to bring Blinken before the committee. However, Democrats disagreed with that characterization. Ranking member Gregory Meeks (D-New York) accused McCaul and other Republicans of orchestrating a "political stunt made for Fox News."

“That’s what this is: a political stunt, plain and simple,” Meeks told Politico. “Why is there suddenly a rush to hold this contempt vote when the secretary has made it clear time and time again that he’s willing to testify?”

As the U.S. was winding down the war in Afghanistan and preparing to withdraw all troops from the war-torn nation, Taliban fighters killed 13 American service members in a bombing at the Kabul airport. Republicans have seized on the tragedy as a central point to argue that Biden's oversight was to blame, given that he had assumed the oath of office several months before the attack.

However, as Vice President Kamala Harris pointed out during her September debate with former President Donald Trump, the Biden administration was simply carrying out the peace plan that Trump and his then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo negotiated with the Taliban in 2020. That deal established the timeline for U.S. withdrawal, with all parties agreeing that the U.S. would withdraw from Afghanistan by May of 2021 after roughly 20 years of war.

Blinken is the third of Biden's cabinet secretaries to be pursued by House Republicans. The House GOP impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas earlier this year over the Biden administration's immigration policy, and held Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress over his refusal to provide the GOP with audio of Biden's deposition with Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur.

Click here to read Politico's report in full.

READ MORE:['That's false': Trump caught lying about Afghanistan withdrawal to families of slain veterans

===