Statement on Signing the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019
Issued 2018-09-28 by Donald J. Trump
Plain-English Overview
AI-generated summary explaining what this action does, who it affects, and why it matters
President Trump signed into law a spending bill that funded the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education for 2019, along with short-term funding for other parts of the government. However, when signing the bill, he issued a statement objecting to several provisions that he believed interfered with his presidential powers. These provisions included restrictions on how he could control military personnel and equipment, requirements that he notify Congress and wait before making certain military decisions, and conditions requiring congressional committee approval before spending certain funds.
The statement explained that while the President signed the bill into law, his administration would not follow certain restrictions as written. Instead, he said his administration would interpret these provisions in ways consistent with his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and his power to manage the executive branch. He cited the separation of powers doctrine—the principle that each branch of government has distinct powers that the other branches cannot interfere with—as justification for treating some congressional requirements as merely advisory rather than mandatory.
This type of presidential action, called a signing statement, raises constitutional questions that legal experts disagree about. Some argue that presidents cannot selectively choose which parts of a law to enforce, as this effectively creates a line-item veto that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Others maintain that presidents have a legitimate right to identify constitutional concerns and interpret laws in light of their own powers.
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 Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019") 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
Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2018 Statement on Signing the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 September 28, 2018 Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6157, the "Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019". Several provisions of the bill (Division A, sections 8068, 8075, 8080(b), 8099, and 8101) restrict the President's authority to control the personnel and materiel the President believes to be necessary or advisable for the successful conduct of military missions. While I share the objectives of the Congress with respect to maintaining the strength and security of the United States, my Administration will implement these provisions consistent with the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Several provisions of the bill (Division A, sections 8068, 8115, and 9016) also require the Executive to notify the Congress and then wait a period of time before making certain military decisions. I reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only actions for which such advance notification is feasible and consistent with the