> UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT > Funds Appropriated To The President
> For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,214,808,000 (increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000), of which up to $182,221,000 may remain available until September 30, 2026
Section 667 of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act just says the money is for “operating expenses” for administering the Act. Who decides how to spend that $1.2 billion?
> Under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State, the agency primarily responsible for administering this part should have the responsibility for coordinating all United States development-related activities
"Guidance". Not direct command. The primary criteria of the agency is to carry out what Congress directed by making the Act. If I'm following your argument in this thread, you mean to say that doing so requires execution, is thus executive power, thus putting it under the full command of the President.
> SEC. 104A. ø22 U.S.C. 2151b–2¿ ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS.
DEI is a bit of a straw man, but there is an entire section on HIV/AIDS! That's a goal spelled out by Congress, which is meant to be executed independent from the desires of a would be president-king. Obviously the executive has leeway in how to interpret the grey areas ("guidance"), but the wholesale disruption/pausing/scrapping is illegal.
It's truly a travesty because the Republicans control both houses of Congress! They could easily pass legislation suspending USAID, and/or legislation for widespread audits of agencies culminating in DOGE. But they haven't.
A temporary pause seems squarely within what the executive is allowed to do.
Sure, Congress can change or clarify the mandate of an agency, and the President must go along with that. But what we’re talking about with Trump is accountability for individual employees and the discretionary conduct of executive branch employees.
For example, Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations, “for purposes of the carrying out the 1961 foreign development act” (paraphrasing). I agree the executive must ultimately spend that money within the broad mandate of the appropriation. But do you spend that money on DEI in Serbia or pro-natalism in South Korea? Clearly the President should be able to decide that.