Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

ancianita

(42,933 posts)

14. Or cut military funding? Is that possible? It seems so, tho' I'm not sure. It's my understanding that, yes,

Reply to Scalded Nun (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 3, 2026, 08:20 PM

Jan 3

Congress has the constitutional authority to cut military funding for a specific cause by exercising its "power of the purse".

Congress can include specific policy provisions (riders) in funding bills to restrict how money is used
or even terminate U.S. participation in hostilities by cutting off funding entirely for a military operation.

Congress can pass legislation that bars the use of funds for certain activities or in certain locations.
While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, with authority over the operational deployment of forces, Congress's power of the purse provides a strong mechanism to influence and even limit military activities and expenditures if there is sufficient political will and agreement to pass such legislation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate to vote on war powers measure following Maduro ouster [View all] BumRushDaShow Jan 3 OP

I see the repukes are trying to find that horse that bolted from the barn again. nt Javaman Jan 3 #1

It will take dweller Jan 3 #2

I fear not. iemanja Jan 3 #12

It won't pass chicoescuela Jan 3 #3

That almost doesn't matter. We need to be seen to be insisting on the Constitution, even if Scrivener7 Jan 3 #5

It might. mahina Jan 3 #7

Good for him! And his statement was good too. He needs to be joined by every Scrivener7 Jan 3 #4

Well there is always Fetterman to muck up the works. Marie Marie Jan 3 #22

Well whoop to dooodoo Katcat Jan 3 #6

Even if enough GQPers go against tRump he'll just ignore it and do whatever he wants. groundloop Jan 3 #11

Like Trump gives a shit. He can do whatever the hell he wants and doesn't care Bev54 Jan 3 #8

People won't be looking at Epstein files,now.. BattleRow Jan 3 #17

I'm waiting to hear something from Rand Paul. Raven123 Jan 3 #9

I saw an article earlier (can't find which site) that was a commentary on his Xitter post linking to a 2007 article BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #16

Thanks. Raven123 Jan 3 #19

"Don't see the parallel between Madura and Mamdani" BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #20

How about not just Venezuela. Our Congress needs to OK this shit. Scalded Nun Jan 3 #10

Or cut military funding? Is that possible? It seems so, tho' I'm not sure. It's my understanding that, yes, ancianita Jan 3 #14

The Republicans will have to pry their mouths from Trump's asshole first. Orrex Jan 3 #13

How bipartisan? SSJVegeta Jan 3 #15

This: calimary Jan 3 #18

Not likely angrychair Jan 3 #21

'Seek approval' my fat old ass. OldBaldy1701E Jan 4 #23

So they will beg him to follow the law. Even though he clearly intends to break the law. travelingthrulife Jan 4 #24