Presidents/Donald J. Trump/Signing Statement
Signing Statement? Legally Debatable

Statement on Signing the Route 66 Centennial Commission Act

Issued 2020-12-23 by Donald J. Trump

Plain-English Overview

AI-generated summary explaining what this action does, who it affects, and why it matters

President Donald Trump issued a "signing statement" when he signed the "Route 66 Centennial Commission Act" into law. This Act creates a Commission made up of individuals appointed by the President, some based on recommendations from Members of Congress. The Commission's role is to study ways to honor the 100th anniversary of Route 66 and provide recommendations exclusively to Congress. The President's statement clarified that his Administration would consider this Commission to be part of the legislative branch to avoid concerns about the separation of powers.

This action affects the individuals appointed to this Commission, Congress who will receive its recommendations, and the General Services Administration (GSA), which is expected to provide administrative support if requested and reimbursed. The President's statement also notes that a directive from a legislative branch entity, like this Commission, cannot be understood as binding on an executive branch entity such as the GSA. This type of statement allows a president to express constitutional or policy objections to specific parts of a law they have just signed. The legal weight and constitutional appropriateness of signing statements have been debated, with critics arguing they can act like a line-item

AI-generated summary for educational purposes

Constitutional Analysis

How this action fits (or doesn't) within Article II authority and existing law

This signing statement ("Statement on Signing the Route 66 Centennial Commission Act") was issued alongside a bill the President signed into law. Signing statements allow presidents to express constitutional or policy objections to specific provisions of legislation they have just signed. Their legal weight and constitutional propriety have been contested since the practice became common in the 1980s.

Critics — including the American Bar Association — argue that using signing statements to announce an intent to not enforce portions of a law effectively creates a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). Defenders argue presidents have a duty to identify constitutional concerns and that signing statements are a legitimate form of executive interpretation. The constitutional propriety depends on whether this specific statement announces non-enforcement or merely records the President's views.

Official Summary

DCPD202000905 * {margin:0; padding:0; text-indent:0; } .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12pt; } h1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12pt; } .p, p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; margin:0pt; } .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12pt; } .s3 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9.5pt; } .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; } .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } .s6 { color: black; font-family:"New Caledonia", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10.5pt; } Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2020 Statement on Signing the Route 66 Centennial Commission Act December 23, 2020

Read the official documentOpen on GovInfo →