Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
2026 FIFA World Cup
17JUN

White House funds war without Congress

3 min read
10:21UTC

Congress rejected war authorisation twice in one week. The White House is spending $891 million a day anyway, drawing on Pentagon accounts never designed for a campaign of this scale.

SportAssessed
Key takeaway

Congress holds two war-checking levers — authorisation and appropriation — and by formally refusing both, it has placed enforcement entirely on courts that have historically declined to intervene in live combat spending decisions.

The White House has not requested supplemental funding from Congress for a campaign consuming $891 million per day. Congress — which rejected the Kaine–Paul War Powers Resolution 47–53 in the Senate on Wednesday and defeated the Massie–Khanna resolution in the House on Thursday — has been asked for neither war authorisation nor war funding.

The statute at issue is the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341–1342), which prohibits federal officers from obligating or expending funds beyond amounts Congress has appropriated. Violations carry criminal penalties: fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to two years. No executive official has ever been criminally prosecuted under the Act for wartime spending. Enforcement has been administrative — reprimands and reassignments — making the statute a constraint that has never been tested in practice at anything approaching this expenditure rate.

The Administration's legal footing for the operation itself rests on Article II commander-in-chief authority and the War Powers Resolution's 60-day clock, which began when strikes started on 28 February and expires in late April. The Resolution requires the President either to withdraw forces or obtain congressional authorisation within that window. Every president since Nixon has questioned its constitutionality; no court has ruled definitively. The funding question is more immediately pressing: existing DoD accounts are finite, and at $891 million per day, available balances may be exhausted before the constitutional clock runs out.

The arrangement has no precedent at this scale. Congress twice declined to authorise the war. Congress twice declined to stop it. The White House has not asked for money. The executive is drawing down accounts filled by prior appropriations for purposes Congress did not envision. Each additional day of operations deepens the gap between what has been authorised and what is being spent — a gap that only a supplemental appropriations bill or a ceasefire can close.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US constitution gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war and to control government spending. A law called the Antideficiency Act specifically forbids spending money that Congress hasn't approved. The Administration is spending billions on a war that Congress both refused to authorise and has not funded. The reason this hasn't stopped the operation is that courts have historically been unwilling to interfere in active military campaigns — judges worry about the consequences of stopping a war mid-execution. The Administration is betting that by the time any legal challenge reaches a court ruling, the operation will be complete or Congress will have been pressured into retroactively approving the spending.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The Administration's strategy appears to treat the Antideficiency Act violation as politically safer than requesting a supplemental appropriation. A supplemental request would force a congressional vote that could impose operational conditions, timelines, or geographic restrictions; spending violations produce only slow-moving legal challenges. The legal risk is deferred and may never materialise; the political risk of a messy congressional debate is avoided entirely. This calculus is rational given precedent but normalises the complete subordination of war-funding to executive discretion.

Root Causes

The Antideficiency Act's enforcement mechanism relies on congressional political will to cut off funding — a step no Congress has taken against an ongoing US military operation because of the 'defunding the troops' political dynamic. Once combat is joined, the appropriations power becomes functionally unenforceable through normal legislative channels, leaving only judicial challenge as a check — and courts have consistently declined to adjudicate war powers disputes on justiciability grounds.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    If a federal court issues an injunction against unappropriated military spending — unlikely but not impossible given the scale — mid-campaign funding disruption could force operational pauses at a moment of tactical vulnerability.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Consequence

    Congress faces a structural dilemma: passing a retroactive supplemental validates both the spending and the war it explicitly rejected, while refusing it invites a constitutional crisis over whether military operations must halt.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    Sustaining a major air campaign on unappropriated funds at this expenditure scale establishes that presidential war-making is financially self-sustaining without legislative consent, structurally weakening congressional war powers for all future administrations regardless of party.

    Long term · Assessed
  • Risk

    Individual DoD officials authorising unappropriated expenditures face theoretical Antideficiency Act personal liability; while enforcement is historically nil, the legal exposure may create a chilling effect on financial management decisions in future administrations.

    Medium term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #24 · Trump demands unconditional surrender

CNN· 6 Mar 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
This Event
White House funds war without Congress
The administration is spending $891 million per day under legal authorities untested at this scale, without supplemental funding from a Congress that twice rejected war authorisation. Existing DoD accounts are finite; at current burn rates, the gap between spending and authorisation grows by nearly $900 million every day.
Different Perspectives
French Football Federation
French Football Federation
The FFF called an 11:00 CEST press conference for 28 July, at its Paris headquarters, following an extraordinary executive committee meeting, at which Zinedine Zidane is expected to be presented as head coach succeeding Didier Deschamps. As of this writing no communique confirms the appointment, contract length or start date.
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco is pushing for the 2030 final at its Grand Stade Hassan II in Casablanca, a planned 115,000-seat venue that would be the world's largest football stadium on completion. The venue is contested by a Spanish petition for the Santiago Bernabeu, and FIFA has fixed neither the venue nor the tournament's proposed 64-team format.
FIFA
FIFA
FIFA's first tournament report, published 27 July, itemises nearly 300,000 accredited personnel, 73,700 security staff and 300,000 square metres of custom-grown turf, with no revenue or cost figure attached. As a Swiss association answering to its own Congress rather than a treasury, FIFA has followed the same operational-before-financial sequence it used after Qatar 2022.
Javier Tebas / La Liga
Javier Tebas / La Liga
La Liga president Javier Tebas said on 21 July that FIFA's system is rotten from the root and that Gianni Infantino's time as president has, in his words, concluded. Tebas has no vote in FIFA's process, so days after the IOC declined jurisdiction over a separate ethics complaint, he used the only instrument he has.
Mexico City government
Mexico City government
Head of government Clara Brugada presented a closing report on 22 July crediting the tournament with 44 billion pesos of economic activity, 2,000-plus accelerated public works and 100,000 formal jobs in June alone. The city has not published the method behind that figure, and three other Mexican bodies count the same five weeks differently.
Town of Foxborough
Town of Foxborough
Foxborough answered Kraft Group's June lawsuit on 7 July with a 61-page counterclaim, calling the stadium's owners 'a collection of multibillion-dollar corporations' trying to shift its $7.8 million security bill onto taxpayers. The town says its licensing power and its billing power run through the same board, and it wants the court to award its own costs too.