Statement on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017
Issued 2017-05-05 by Donald J. Trump
Plain-English Overview
AI-generated summary explaining what this action does, who it affects, and why it matters
On May 5, 2017, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which funded the operation of the federal government through September 30, 2017. However, he simultaneously issued a statement objecting to numerous provisions in the law that he considered problematic. These objections included provisions restricting transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and foreign countries, requirements for advance congressional notice before certain military actions, restrictions on paying salaries for several White House advisory positions, and limits on enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized medical marijuana.
The President stated he would interpret these provisions "consistently with" his constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief, his authority to negotiate international agreements and conduct foreign relations, and his ability to supervise the executive branch and obtain advice from White House advisers. In essence, while signing the entire funding bill into law, he announced his intention to treat certain restrictions as not binding when he believes they conflict with presidential powers.
This type of presidential action, called a signing statement, has been debated for decades. Critics argue that announcing an intent to selectively enforce parts of a law effectively creates an unconstitutional line-item veto, while defenders say presidents have a duty to identify constitutional concerns. The statement does not change the law itself but signals how the administration plans to interpret and enforce it.
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 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017") was issued alongside a bill the President signed into law. The President's stated concerns: "Security Forces Fund," "Counter-ISIL Train and Equip Fund," and "Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Fund") require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance." 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, 2017 Statement on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 May 5, 2017 Today I have signed into law H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which authorizes appropriations that fund the operation of the Federal Government through September 30, 2017. Certain provisions of this bill (e.g., Division C, sections 8049, 8058, 8077, 8081, and 8116; Division J, under the heading "Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities") would, in certain circumstances, unconstitutionally limit my ability to modify the command and control of military personnel and materiel or unconstitutionally vest final decision-making authority in my military advisers. Further, Division B, section 527; Division C, section 8101; and Division F, section 517 each restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States; Division C, section 8103 restricts the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries and does not include an exception for when a court might order the release of a detainee to certain countries. I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistently with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Certain provisions (e.g., Division C, sections 8040, 8075, 8114, 9005, 9011, 9014, and under the headings &quo