Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are less than 72 hours left in this Mid-Year Campaign and our independent journalism needs your help today.
If you value our work, please support Common Dreams. This is our hour of need.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

 U.S. Attorney General William Barr speaks at a press conference on December 18, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

'Destruction of Checks and Balances': WH Lawyers Reportedly Argued Trump Could Override Congress to Freeze Ukraine Aid

"That's unconstitutional. If they had a real legal justification, they wouldn't resort to such absurd claims."

Jake Johnson

In an attempt to retroactively justify President Donald Trump's decision to place a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally-appropriated aid to Ukraine, top lawyers in the White House budget office—in concert with the Justice Department—reportedly developed an argument that Trump could simply override Congress and flout relevant laws by simply asserting his authority as commander-in-chief.

The New York Times reported Sunday that in the late summer, lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget—then run by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney—argued the president "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act and continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander-in-chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."

Legal experts and Democrats in Congress have argued that Trump's decision to place a hold on aid to Ukraine—a move at the center of the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to his impeachment—constituted a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.

As the Washington Post reported last month, one OMB legal official resigned over Trump's decision to withhold the aid after raising concerns that the president's move ran afoul of the 1974 law.

Critics reacted with alarm to the proposed justification for freezing the Ukraine aid, which was not disclosed publicly.

"Every Republican lawmaker must be asked if they support this destruction of checks and balances," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance.

The Times reporting on the OMB lawyers' efforts was part of a broader story detailing the series of events that unfolded between Trump's order to withhold aid to Ukraine this summer and his decision in September to release the funds.

"What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump's demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny—and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistleblower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers," the Times reported.

Commentators said the detailed story paints a picture of a president bent on deploying the vast powers of government for his own personal and political gain with complete disregard for the law and, in some cases, the advice of administration officials.

"Everything in here—how Trump was personally involved in blocking the Ukraine money, despite the insistence of senior administration officials, and how the aid was only released after they learned of the whistleblower complaint—is incredibly damning," said HuffPost reporter Matt Fuller.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) tweeted late Sunday that the report "illustrates again that the only Ukraine corruption cases Trump ever raised involved his political opponents."

"The people Trump directed to carry out his scheme hid it from the public and refused to testify to Congress," said Beyer. "This was a clear and terrible abuse of power."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Markey, Bowman Join Climate Coalition in Urging SCOTUS Expansion

"We cannot sit idly by," said Markey, "as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution."

Brett Wilkins ·


Ocasio-Cortez Says US 'Witnessing a Judicial Coup in Process'

"It is our duty to check the Court's gross overreach of power in violating people's inalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the president."

Brett Wilkins ·


Critics Say Biden Drilling Bonanza 'Won't Lower Gas Prices' But 'Will Worsen Climate Crisis'

"President Biden's massive public lands giveaway in the face of utter climate catastrophe is just the latest sign that his climate commitments are mere rhetoric," said one campaigner.

Kenny Stancil ·


Grave Warnings as Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Threatens 'Future of Voting Rights'

"Buckle up," implores one prominent legal scholar. "An extreme decision here could fundamentally alter the balance of power in setting election rules in the states and provide a path for great threats to elections."

Brett Wilkins ·


Biden Urged to Take Emergency Action After 'Disastrous' Climate Ruling by Supreme Court

"The catastrophic impact of this decision cannot be understated," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, but "we cannot accept defeat."

Kenny Stancil ·

Common Dreams Logo