The Democratic Party has been warning on the movement of President Trump, a freezing fund, approved by President Biden's signature bill.
President Trump has issued a presidential decree to suspend the spending of funds assigned through inflation suppression and ultra -controlled infrastructure.
The Democratic Party has argued that President Trump's order violates the law called the ICA, which has restricted the authority of the president approved by Congress.
Representative Rosa Delaulo (Connecticut), the leading Democratic Party of the House of Representatives, accused this bill as “illegally seizure”, and at the same time “all companies, non -profit organizations, and state governments. And the local government will give uncertainty. ” You will be involved in any of those laws. “
The Republican Party, on the other hand, has also dismissed the attack, defending President Trump's movements within the range of authority as a president, and also mentions plans to cancel some of the funds.
“Obviously, we intend to regain funds there,” said Cardinal John Hoven, a Democratic Party, told The Hill this week. “We are clarifying that, and that's what we are considering when adjusting the budget.”
“The pause of the president means that the president has administrative rights and has some discretion in that field,” he argued.
Part of the problem is that President Trump's order is not exactly clear what is included. These laws include tax deductions for low -carbon energy projects, consumer rebates for technology to make houses more friendly, subsidies for reducing contamination, roads, bridges, and electric vehicles. It provides funds to various things, such as funds.
The White House announces notes on Wednesday, and states that the pause is applied only to the funds that “support programs, projects, or activities” in the specific clause of the presidential decree. Ta.
In the section of the order, the US policy is to eliminate “electric vehicles (EV) obligations” by ensuring equal -regulated competitive conditions for consumer choices in automobiles. It is stated that “ensuring the safety of automobiles” is a policy. It is to promote the freedom of American people from various products and appliances, and promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and electrical appliances. “
However, it is still unknown what it applies to specifically, and whether it includes the funded by the Federal government, which has not been officially announced.
“The content is terrible. The Republican State and the Democratic Party are also trying to organize what the Presidential Ordinance means,” said Senator Sheldon White House (Dr.I). “I had a explanation first, but I couldn't get much of the content.”
Nevertheless, some climate change protection activists are still concerned about the final impact of President Trump's movements.
“We have made a big progress in the past four years, but we have the potential to really recede us in an era when we can't afford to do so. “Was said. 。
The conflict between the party has just intensified in the last few days. While the Republican Party is working on the Trump administration's former Secretary -General of the Trump administration, Russell Vort, the Democratic Party has also grasped the order in the Senate.
On Thursday, he told the reporters on Thursday that he is at the forefront of the Financial Fund, “said Vort, saying,” How will we operate the funds we have allocated in the future. ” You can decide, “he said, raising concerns about” danger. ” Confinement. “
The remark was issued at a press conference held by the Senate Democratic Party to nominate Vort, and one Senate described Vort as “the most dangerous candidate recommended by Trump.”
The Democratic Party is also in the Trump administration of the President, especially under the Trump administration, which freezes security support for Ukraine because the president has drawn out heat from the party over recent movements for external assistance. Is blamed violently.
Mr. Vort said in a testimony conducted in front of the Senator this week that President Trump defends the funds of funding for funding and says that the purpose is to “plan a planned delay”, but the candidate is unconstitutional. I repeated the position.
“We faithfully follow the law,” said Vort. “The president ran based on the idea that the capture management method is unconstitutional. I agree with it.”
In recent months, conservatives of hardliners have also taken up this issue, and has been calling for the withdrawal of the bill. Republicans have argued that the measures have violated the Constitution, and that the withdrawal of this measure will help President Trump to pursue further reductions.
However, other Republican members did not sign up for the proposal.
“I think there is a limit, and there is probably a difference in opinion between the government and the parliament,” said Hoven.
Senator John Kennedy (Republican Party, Louisiana), also a Cardinal spending Cardinal, said that the ICA was unconstitutional, “it can discuss whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.”
“But it depends on the situation. It's a concrete fact,” he argued. “It is not generally not possible to say as a comprehensive proposition that the president cannot hold a duty of expenditure. That is a very individual case.”
However, some experts have blamed this matter.
Former Senate Budget Assistant, American Progress Federal Budget Policy Senior Director Bobby Kogan on Thursday asserted on Thursday that pause the already fixed contract is a violation of the contract. He also mentioned the seizure clause, which has given the president the authority to suspend obligations.
“In 2018, President Trump tried legal means,” Kogan said, “I tried to legally cancel some of the budget permissions that were not obligatory during that period.” He has been allowed to pause legally, not all expenditures, but has shown that a new duty will be legally suspended. “
“That's extremely legal. What they are doing is not that,” he said, at the same time argued. Previous action The remarks on the suspension of support to Ukraine, “It was an illegal road, but was re -implemented in 2025.”
