3.8K views · 1.3K reactions | Democrats file lawsuits to prevent military members from getting...

I do think this approach is a violation of fiscal law, but I also don't think anyone will pursue it due to the poor optics. However, this will likely set a precedent that will be used to justify shifting money in future shutdowns.

LTC Kevin B. - For other Departments, I agree, but DoD (DoW?) specifically has General Transfer Authority* and can transfer/reprogram funds and can shuffle funds between programs (such as moving RDT&E monies over to the MILPERS account) as long as it stays within the statutory framework.
--------------------------------------
* Defense Primer: DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities - https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11243/IF11243.7.pdf

COL Randall C. - The DoD can transfer funds, with clear limitations on type and amount, both of which may very well not apply in this scenario. Plus, in this case, it appears as if the Trump administration is using money from a previous fiscal year to fund recurring requirements (not unforeseen requirements) in the current year for which there is no appropriation. That's also a potential problem. Like I said, I don't think anyone will prosecute this, but the Trump administration is moving forward without any clear legal authority to take this action. Here's a good discussion on it.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/management/2025/10/is-it-legal-to-use-rd-money-to-pay-troops-during-shutdown/

LTC Kevin B. - Hmmm.... I missed the comments from the Department's spokesman about using unobligated prior year funding. However, the provisions for the Department's use of the GTA states that they can transfer multi-year funds with the stipulation that the funds transferred must maintain their 'fiscal identity' and that the expiration date of those funds cannot change, regardless of the account that they are being transferred into.

As the law is explicit on the when the authority is denied (MILCON, Intelligence funding, funding that was specifically denied (as opposed to just not funded) by Congress, etc.) it is gray when it comes to the permissible (presumably to allow the maximum flexibility to the Department) and leaves it to the "determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest".

Is funding troops during a government shutdown "necessary in the national interest"? That gray area definitely falls into one of those things where the context will be viewed through the ideological prism the individual has. Supporters will say it is while detractors will say it isn't.

As there are so many aspects of fiscal law at play, it would be up to the courts to decide what that fine line between permissible and non-permissible is. But, as we both agree, it is very unlikely to every see the inside of a courtroom (at least for this purpose) so it will remain gray.

You do know your beloved CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc.. All have Facebook pages, right? They also post their "articles" on Facebook.

MSG Billy Brumfield - Everybody post on Facebook, truth or not.