I mean, in basis of "The military is about to literally shut down and we will be left without the most basic thing a government needs to claim a sovereign existence," as a crisis to enforce executive control? Absolutely yes he can. But this goes into complex legal shennanigans.

Frankly I think it's a case of: If anyone tries to stop him, theyd be outright traitors to the country purely to spite one man. If it's a choice between a nation functionally ceasing to exist and at least keeping basic security around, any sane person would go "fine, but only until congress comes to decide."

Originally posted by Agenda 2025:

Since Congress won't pay the US military on November 1st can Trump really pay them?

From what I read, no. Going through US history only Congress can since it is their army but there was one exception. US States in the American Revolutionary War paid the military of Congress once by giving military members land and clothing. The city of Salem Massachusetts paid military members cash and a half dozen cattle when they left military service.

A US President can not pay the military, but he can keep their pay Congress gives them legally.
President Harry Truman Executive Order 10122. The President kept the money that paid military members who were Disabled Retired after the Veterans Affairs 'disabled retired' program was ended. To this day the President keeps that money, 300,000 disabled retired US military with Blue ID cards that say "retired" are not paid 1 penny. (Funds the Aircraft Carriers for the last 75 years)

why should goverment have to pay millitairy why not make the millitairy have some work and produces to make their own money and become self sufficient same with fire fighters and police not worth maintaining something wich dont generate profit its why the goverments of the world are in debt

Originally posted by lailaamell:

Originally posted by Agenda 2025:

Since Congress won't pay the US military on November 1st can Trump really pay them?

From what I read, no. Going through US history only Congress can since it is their army but there was one exception. US States in the American Revolutionary War paid the military of Congress once by giving military members land and clothing. The city of Salem Massachusetts paid military members cash and a half dozen cattle when they left military service.

A US President can not pay the military, but he can keep their pay Congress gives them legally.
President Harry Truman Executive Order 10122. The President kept the money that paid military members who were Disabled Retired after the Veterans Affairs 'disabled retired' program was ended. To this day the President keeps that money, 300,000 disabled retired US military with Blue ID cards that say "retired" are not paid 1 penny. (Funds the Aircraft Carriers for the last 75 years)

why should goverment have to pay millitairy why not make the millitairy have some work and produces to make their own money and become self sufficient same with fire fighters and police not worth maintaining something wich dont generate profit

Because the government cannot be a commercial entity. Being a purely commercial entity undermines it's role and gives drastically unfair advantages to whatever business it opens at the detriment to everyone else. It basically be insider trading in commercial form. And if that isnt enough, how the hell are they gonna be operating civilian industry while, you know, being the military? No, it have to be separate arms but that just be the government operating a commercial business. The military is a basic expense of every government, not a means of profit.

There is $2 Trillion in the Pentagon's Retired Military Trust Fund and only $70 Billion a year used to pay retired military members.

Congress does not pay the retired military anymore. Been that way since Reagan created the Trust Funds.

The annual reports on that Trust Fund are public.

https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/afr/fy2024/DoD_Components/2024_AFR_MRF.pdf

Originally posted by Agenda 2025:

There is $2 Trillion in the Pentagon's Retired Military Trust Fund and only $70 Billion a year used to pay retired military members.

Congress does not pay the retired military anymore. Been that way since Reagan created the Trust Funds.

The annual reports on that Trust Fund are public.

https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/afr/fy2024/DoD_Components/2024_AFR_MRF.pdf

why not stop paying retirement if they dont work they dont get paid its simple its how it worked for ages why not just end retirement get more ppl out to work and still why not make the millitairy do work when inactive to create some profit margin for the goverment wich would reduce debt lower the evil of communism wich is infesting america

Originally posted by lailaamell:

Originally posted by Agenda 2025:

There is $2 Trillion in the Pentagon's Retired Military Trust Fund and only $70 Billion a year used to pay retired military members.

Congress does not pay the retired military anymore. Been that way since Reagan created the Trust Funds.

The annual reports on that Trust Fund are public.

https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/afr/fy2024/DoD_Components/2024_AFR_MRF.pdf

why not stop paying retirement if they dont work they dont get paid its simple its how it worked for ages why not just end retirement get more ppl out to work and still why not make the millitairy do work when inactive to create some profit margin for the goverment wich would reduce debt lower the evil of communism wich is infesting america

Boxes #1 and #2 for sure. Possibly #3 as well.

Blocked.

(Democrats shut down the government.)

Leftists: "Why would Trump do this?"

Originally posted by Agenda 2025:

Since Congress won't pay the US military on November 1st can Trump really pay them?

Yes. He can.

https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/15/research-money-military-pay-pentagons-shutdown-workaround.html

Not for long, no. He's trying some workarounds, but that'll only last for a month.

Can't speak for the retirees. I would assume being they paid in they're not affected. Active duty are.

The Military of the United States belongs to the people of the United States...Any rules regarding the payment of the United States Military are simply in place to prevent a favoritism by the Military by hedging and gifting...If Congress will not act to ensure base pay of the United States Military, then the President of the United States can act with full authority as Commander in Chief to ensure that base pay is given to the military men and women of the United States...And he has full authority to pull it from any secondary funded source that he deems as secondary...And it is all secondary to the proper defense and readiness of the military...Personally, I would like to see it come out of the paychecks of every Senator that has caused this shutdown...That would be both satisfying and appropriate...

Originally posted by jimbalayajones:

The Military of the United States belongs to the people of the United States...Any rules regarding the payment of the United States Military are simply in place to prevent a favoritism by the Military by hedging and gifting...If Congress will not act to ensure base pay of the United States Military, then the President of the United States can act with full authority as Commander in Chief to ensure that base pay is given to the military men and women of the United States...And he has full authority to pull it from any secondary funded source that he deems as secondary...And it is all secondary to the proper defense and readiness of the military...Personally, I would like to see it come out of the paychecks of every Senator that has caused this shutdown...That would be both satisfying and appropriate...

I think i disagree with that. Being "Commander in Chief" soley means he's the highest ranking member of the military. That does not give him the power to fund the military, which soley comes from Congress.

The latest workaround was not challenged, being they didn't want to challenge it.

But being there is no Line Item Veto, the President does not have the authority to thwart Congress in monies already allocated to other programs.

Same with ICE or Border Patrol. He can make them work for a certain period without pay, but beyond that period he would have to lay them off.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by jimbalayajones:

The Military of the United States belongs to the people of the United States...Any rules regarding the payment of the United States Military are simply in place to prevent a favoritism by the Military by hedging and gifting...If Congress will not act to ensure base pay of the United States Military, then the President of the United States can act with full authority as Commander in Chief to ensure that base pay is given to the military men and women of the United States...And he has full authority to pull it from any secondary funded source that he deems as secondary...And it is all secondary to the proper defense and readiness of the military...Personally, I would like to see it come out of the paychecks of every Senator that has caused this shutdown...That would be both satisfying and appropriate...

I think i disagree with that. Being "Commander in Chief" soley means he's the highest ranking member of the military. That does not give him the power to fund the military, which soley comes from Congress.

The latest workaround was not challenged, being they didn't want to challenge it.

But being there is no Line Item Veto, the President does not have the authority to thwart Congress in monies already allocated to other programs.

Same with ICE or Border Patrol. He can make them work for a certain period without pay, but beyond that period he would have to lay them off.

How does one operate the military if it has zero funding my man. If collecting funds is necessayr to give the orders and run it, then yes, being the commander-in-cheif does give him that right. On top of that, a total collapse of basic national structure would be considered an immediate crisis and justification for temporary martial law until congress gets it's budget together. What else do you want him to do? Declare the government not in operation down to the military not being in excistence?

Originally posted by videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

I think i disagree with that. Being "Commander in Chief" soley means he's the highest ranking member of the military. That does not give him the power to fund the military, which soley comes from Congress.

The latest workaround was not challenged, being they didn't want to challenge it.

But being there is no Line Item Veto, the President does not have the authority to thwart Congress in monies already allocated to other programs.

Same with ICE or Border Patrol. He can make them work for a certain period without pay, but beyond that period he would have to lay them off.

How does one operate the military if it has zero funding my man.

Well thats why you don't shut down government sir. Shutdowns can literally be deadly. We don't think of it that way, because they never last long enough. But if they do, yes, the military will not be paid.

The President is not a King. And i'm not saying that for the sake of saying it. Only the Congress has the power of the purse. Not the President.

Congress is a co equal branch, and if Congress does not want to fund certain matters including the military, it can be a crisis, but it can happen.

That's why we elect congress to make those decisions as to what we fund, and what we don't.

And that is why you don't shut down government.

Trump's E.O. reshuffles funds approved for 2026 to pay off wages in 2025, and while that is a questionable prospect, he might be able to get away with it if the funds were already appropriated to the executive branch.

Moreover, by the time the shutdown is over, the military is supposed to receive back-pay anyway, so there isn't really anything that can be done to challenge the action, because the money would already be in the hands of whom to which it is owed. No legal remedy would be possible.

Maybe if the shutdown continued on into 2026 it would cause a problem.

Originally posted by videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

I mean, in basis of "The military is about to literally shut down and we will be left without the most basic thing a government needs to claim a sovereign existence," as a crisis to enforce executive control? Absolutely yes he can. But this goes into complex legal shennanigans.

First, it doesn't quite work like that. The military is expected to show up to work regardless, and then they get backpay when the shutdown is over.

Second, I am not saying this is how the court would rule, because as an institution of the federal government it has its own biases in favor of it., but strictly speaking, there is no two ways about it: If congress does not fund the military. he technically wouldn't be allowed to do it because one of the many things the founding forefathers feared about British rule was the standing army. It made them feel as if the red coats always had their guns pointed at them.

This was a direct cause of the American Revolution. Not only did Patrick Henry give an impassioned speech upon it[avalon.law.yale.edu], from where his give me liberty or give me death quotation comes, in which he said

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.

but it is also directly listed as one of the numerous crimes in the Declaration of Independence[www.archives.gov] "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." It is without doubt that a standing army is one of the causes of the revolutionary war, if not the main cause of the revolutionary war.

It is for this reason that in Article Ⅰ Section 8 of the constitution[www.annenbergclassroom.org], the congressional grant of power to fund the military comes with a restriction of funding the army for two years:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

This provision is meant to give congress what Madison calls "The Power of the Purse" in Federalist No 58.[avalon.law.yale.edu] Congress closes up its purse-strings to taxpayer funds[/url], denying the army its allowance, effectively grounding its army like a parent grounds their naughty child, forcing the executive branch to drop the sword and surrender if it steps too far out of line with congressional will.

Hamilton is in somewhat of a concurannce, since in Federalist no 78[avalon.law.yale.edu] he claimed the court is the weakest of the three branches because it holds neither the power of the sword or the purse, meaning he recognizes the power of the purse as a concept. Any supposed 'necessity' that overrides this would throw a wrench in the whole system of checks and balances, and a rather large one at that that would allow the executive to argue the case for a forever war without congressional input.

A fair and impartial court wouldn't allow it, since the constitution is rather clear cut and dry on this point, and their job in all circumstances is to ensure the government follows the rule of law and proper procedure to the letter. This is the basis upon which statutes can be ruled unconstitutional and thus invalid: The constitution is the law of laws which grants the U.S.A. its authority in the first place. A principle the court first recognizes in Madison v. Maybury, and a principle also described in the Federalist papers. However, with that having been said, I can also imagine the court having a conflict of interest that compels them to rule otherwise, illegitimate as though it may be.)

The only reasons I think Trump might be able to get away with this in this case is because the funds may have already been given to the army, and it is possible that by the time a legal challenge may be launched, the cause for the case may have already passed, forcing the court to drop it like a bag of bricks.