Trump points to military in defense of spending bill

PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump on Sunday defended his decision to sign a $1.3 trillion federal spending bill despite his misgivings, pointing to billions in new funding for the military and national security.

Trump said on Twitter from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that because of the military funding, “many jobs are created and our Military is again rich.” He said building his signature border wall “is all about National Defense.”

Since signing the bill on Friday after threatening a veto, Trump has faced fierce criticism from conservatives who have accused him of caving to congressional Democrats. The president said Friday at the White House he was “very disappointed” in the package, in part because it didn’t fully pay for his border wall. But Trump said he had “no choice” because the nation needed to fund the military.

Trump sought $25 billion for his border wall, but the plan included much less — $1.6 billion for building new sections of wall and replacing older sections. Trump tweeted Sunday that much can be done with the money and it’s “just a down payment.”

He said the “rest of the money will come” and again reiterated that Democrats “abandoned” young people seeking protection from deportation. Trump on Friday noted that the bill failed to extend protection from deportation to some 700,000 “Dreamers” due to lose coverage under a program the president himself has tried to eliminate.

Trump’s veto threat had put him at odds with top members of his administration and Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, who urged him to sign the bill. But prominent conservatives have criticized the spending plan, warning that it could add to the nation’s debt.

The president on Friday warned Congress that he would “never sign another bill like this again.” He called for the Senate to overhaul its rules to allow for simple-majority votes on all bills and urged Congress to provide him with a line-item veto power to kill specific spending items he disagrees with. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a congressionally passed line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Sunday kept up the push for a line-item veto, saying on Fox News Sunday that it might prevent Democrats from stacking more nondefense discretionary spending into the next mustpast budget bill.

But Mnuchin’s short exchange with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace also underlined the problem with the idea — the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the line-item veto, finding “no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes,” after President Bill Clinton used it 82 times.

“I think they should give the president a line-item veto,” said Mnuchin, echoing Trump’s comments after he signed last week’s omnibus budget bill.

“That’s been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” Wallace said.

“Well, again, Congress could pass a rule, OK, that allows them to do it,” Mnuchin said.

“It would be a constitutional amendment,” Wallace said.

“Chris, we don’t need to get into a debate,” the treasury secretary said. “There’s different ways of doing this.”

Since 1998, Congress and presidents of both parties have made halting attempts at restoring the line-item veto. In 2006, George W. Bush’s administration got behind the Legislative LineItem Veto Act, which passed the Republican-controlled House but died in the Republican-controlled Senate. In 2011, a new Republican-led House advanced the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, which also died in the Senate. Both bills were backed by Ryan, the future House speaker; both had bipartisan support.

There has been no similar groundswell for a line-item veto in this Congress, in part because the issue has become more partisan. Trump’s new interest in veto power comes as he accuses Democrats of using the omnibus negotiations to fund some of their priorities. (“The Democrats demanded a massive increase in nonmilitary spending,” Mnuchin said.)

Mnuchin did not discuss an idea that has circulated on the right — simply not spending money appropriated by Congress. The “impoundment” process also has been struck down by the Supreme Court; the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, was for a long time the last word on whether the executive branch could simply decline to spend money.

But the Trump administration has already played around the edges of impoundment. Before being let go this month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson drew fire from Democrats for not spending $80 million appropriated to fight terrorist propaganda and Russian election interference. After being named acting director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney requested no money for the watchdog agency.

The omnibus signed by the president contained funding for the bureau.