Jack Goldsmith

When he gets control of the FCC and starts using the FCC to weaponize the FCC because he has control and it's not an independent agency, not going to be a good thing. There are downsides, serious potential downsides, especially for a president unconstrained by norms, inclined to weaponization, serious downsides from having the president have complete control.

When he gets control of the FCC and starts using the FCC to weaponize the FCC because he has control and it's not an independent agency, not going to be a good thing. There are downsides, serious potential downsides, especially for a president unconstrained by norms, inclined to weaponization, serious downsides from having the president have complete control.

And so I think there's, the point I want to make is there's a bit of a mismatch between thinking too much red tape and the answer is giving the president full control of everything. I mean, it's not quite that simple.

And so I think there's, the point I want to make is there's a bit of a mismatch between thinking too much red tape and the answer is giving the president full control of everything. I mean, it's not quite that simple.

The empowerment power that the Trump administration has been talking about is the idea that the president has power under Article 2 of the Constitution, constitutional power, to basically not spend appropriated funds.

The empowerment power that the Trump administration has been talking about is the idea that the president has power under Article 2 of the Constitution, constitutional power, to basically not spend appropriated funds.

that this is an element of the executive power and of the president's discretion under the Take Care Clause, which is the clause that says the president has a duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed, and that has a discretionary component.

that this is an element of the executive power and of the president's discretion under the Take Care Clause, which is the clause that says the president has a duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed, and that has a discretionary component.

So the basic idea is that Congress's core power to tell the president to spend this money on this program can be basically killed by a president in his discretion if he doesn't want to spend the money. And what we're talking about here is how much discretion the president has in the Trump context. In the Obama context, it was spending money maybe that he shouldn't have been spending.

So the basic idea is that Congress's core power to tell the president to spend this money on this program can be basically killed by a president in his discretion if he doesn't want to spend the money. And what we're talking about here is how much discretion the president has in the Trump context. In the Obama context, it was spending money maybe that he shouldn't have been spending.

But in the Trump context, it's not spending money that Congress wanted him to spend. Almost all of the arguments they've made thus far have been what you called administrative law and what I'm calling statutory arguments, i.e., they've been down in the weeds of this. And it's really amazing how much in the weeds it's been. This statute actually gives us discretion to not spend if we don't want to.

But in the Trump context, it's not spending money that Congress wanted him to spend. Almost all of the arguments they've made thus far have been what you called administrative law and what I'm calling statutory arguments, i.e., they've been down in the weeds of this. And it's really amazing how much in the weeds it's been. This statute actually gives us discretion to not spend if we don't want to.

There's something called programmatic delays, which give any administration discretion to delay spending because there may be some legal thing you have to consider over here or some new policy over there. A lot of it has been breaching contracts that they claim they have the authority to do under relevant statutes.

There's something called programmatic delays, which give any administration discretion to delay spending because there may be some legal thing you have to consider over here or some new policy over there. A lot of it has been breaching contracts that they claim they have the authority to do under relevant statutes.

So most of what they've been doing, as far as I can tell, is taking advantage of their super planning and knowledge of the appropriation process, taking advantage of weaknesses in that, And kind of what they're doing on the firing side, they're doing on the spending side.

So most of what they've been doing, as far as I can tell, is taking advantage of their super planning and knowledge of the appropriation process, taking advantage of weaknesses in that, And kind of what they're doing on the firing side, they're doing on the spending side.

So the argument you were talking about, the empowerment argument, was the one that both President Trump and Russell Vogt, who's the head of the Office of Management and Budget and a hugely influential person in the administration— This is the argument that the president has a constitutional power, regardless of what the statutes say.

So the argument you were talking about, the empowerment argument, was the one that both President Trump and Russell Vogt, who's the head of the Office of Management and Budget and a hugely influential person in the administration— This is the argument that the president has a constitutional power, regardless of what the statutes say.

And there's a statute called the Impoundment Control Act that purports to tell the president that he has to spend monies with a few exceptions that are hard to meet.

And there's a statute called the Impoundment Control Act that purports to tell the president that he has to spend monies with a few exceptions that are hard to meet.