Trump has once again pushed the boundaries of executive authority, signing a controversial presidential memorandum that dramatically expands his power to spend federal money—bypassing Congress entirely. The move, announced Wednesday, October 15, 2025, grants Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sweeping discretion to repurpose existing federal funds to pay military personnel, even in the absence of congressional appropriations.
Table of Contents
- What the Memo Actually Says
- Constitutional Red Flags
- Why Now? The Shutdown Threat
- Political and Legal Reactions
- Historical Context: Not the First Time
- Sources
What the Memo Actually Says
The presidential memorandum, signed by Trump on October 15, 2025, authorizes the Secretary of Defense—Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host turned cabinet official—to identify and redirect unobligated federal funds from various departments to ensure “continuity of pay” for active-duty military members. This authority applies even if Congress fails to pass a defense appropriations bill, effectively sidestepping the legislative branch’s constitutional role.
According to the White House, the move is a “prudent contingency measure” to protect service members from financial hardship during potential government funding gaps. But critics argue it’s a dangerous overreach that undermines the separation of powers.
Constitutional Red Flags
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution is clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That “Law” means an act of Congress—not a presidential memo.
Legal scholars warn that Trump’s directive tests the limits of executive power. “This isn’t just administrative flexibility—it’s a direct challenge to Congress’s ‘power of the purse,’” said Professor Elena Martinez of Georgetown Law. “If upheld, it sets a precedent that could erode legislative authority for decades.”
Why Now? The Shutdown Threat
The timing is no coincidence. With the federal fiscal year underway and key appropriations bills stalled in a divided Congress, the threat of a partial government shutdown looms. By ensuring military pay continues regardless of legislative gridlock, Trump may be attempting to preempt political fallout while appealing to his base’s strong support for the armed forces.
Notably, this strategy mirrors actions taken during his first term—most famously in 2019, when he declared a national emergency to redirect military construction funds toward border wall construction, sparking a major legal battle.
Political and Legal Reactions
Democratic leaders were swift to condemn the move. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “an autocratic power grab disguised as patriotism.” Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers expressed cautious support, praising the protection of troops but voicing unease over the constitutional implications.
Legal challenges are expected. Watchdog groups like the Government Accountability Project and Common Cause are already reviewing the memo for potential lawsuits.
Historical Context: Not the First Time
This isn’t the first time a president has stretched spending authority during budget standoffs. Presidents from both parties have used creative accounting during shutdowns—such as prioritizing “essential” services. But Trump’s explicit delegation of fund-repurposing power to a cabinet secretary, without congressional sign-off, marks a significant escalation.
The question now is whether the courts—or Congress—will push back.
