Congress’s Nonpartisan Watchdog Finds That Trump’s Ukraine Policy Broke the Law

A legal decision says the President cannot “substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted.”

Mark Wilson/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Trump administration broke the law by improperly withholding security assistance from Ukraine, according to a legal decision published Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, an independent congressional watchdog. While the White House Office of Management and Budget had told the GAO that it wanted to ensure the funding would not be spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,” auditors found that the blocking of nearly $214 million in military aid took place in defiance of the law and without an appropriate legal justification. 

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” read the decision, which was issued by GAO general counsel Thomas Armstrong. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

That blunt determination comes on the same day House Democrats formally presented articles of impeachment to the Senate detailing how President Donald Trump corrupted foreign policy toward Ukraine for his personal gain. The Republican-controlled upper chamber will debate whether the president should be removed from office for his role in making Ukraine’s military aid contingent on the country launching a series of investigations into Trump’s political rivals. Last month, the Democratic-majority House impeached Trump on a largely party-line vote, determining that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and an energy company connected to his son Hunter.

Beginning in July, government auditors tasked with monitoring appropriations law found that OMB delayed its congressionally-mandated release of funds for Ukraine to the Pentagon nine times, as the White House claimed the hold was necessary “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” Presidents have limited power to withhold funds approved by Congress, and must formally notify Congress of the reasons for any deferral. The Trump administration did no such thing. The delays, which blocked more than 85 percent of the $250 million Congress had appropriated to Ukraine last fiscal year, are a key part of Democrats’ case for stripping Trump of the presidency. 

Shortly after the decision was released, several Democrats central to the impeachment inquiry highlighted it as further confirmation of improper behavior on the part of Trump and his allies.

“President Trump’s conduct is all the more egregious because he was not withholding the funds for a policy reason at all,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement, “but for the corrupt purpose of seeking foreign help in his reelection campaign.”

In a series of tweets, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “bombshell legal opinion” that underscored the “urgent need to obtain all relevant documents and hear from all key fact witnesses in order to ensure a fair trial.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), echoed the argument in reading parts of the decision at her weekly press conference, declaring, “The White House, the administration—I’m saying this—broke the law.” 

As the decision gained traction on Thursday, OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel disputed its conclusions. “We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” she told the New York Times, insisting in the face of the finding the White House broke the law that “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

On the contrary, the report found that OMB staff were solely concerned with Trump’s priorities, and not their responsibilities under the law.

“The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,” Armstrong said in a statement accompanying his opinion’s release. “The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate