Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
16APR

White House funds war without Congress

3 min read
14:27UTC

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.

ConflictAssessed
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
Bulgarian government
Bulgarian government
Bulgaria's Prime Minister, Rumen Radev, said the sinking of HS Dignity "benefits the Russian Federation" while saying Bulgaria lacked solid evidence to accuse anyone, and Defence Minister Dimitar Stoyanov asked NATO for air defence on 16 October. The request comes from a government that stopped state military aid to Ukraine in June.
Radoslaw Sikorski
Radoslaw Sikorski
Poland's foreign minister challenged Elon Musk on X after SpaceX capped Ukraine's Starshield terminals on 14 October. Poland pays about $50m a year for Ukraine's Starlink subscriptions, so Warsaw speaks as the paying customer as well as the ally.
Andy Burnham
Andy Burnham
Burnham fast-tracked £10m of a £45m air-defence missile delivery when Zelenskyy visited London on 14 October, and his ministers are lobbying allies to ban maritime services for Russian liquefied natural gas. The measure targets insurers and shipowners, many of them in London, rather than the gas itself.
Ministry of External Affairs (India)
Ministry of External Affairs (India)
India's foreign ministry said after the 16 September House vote that New Delhi would take all necessary measures to protect its trade.
European Council
European Council
EU leaders on 15-16 October rejected a US idea to hand Washington the roughly €200bn of frozen Russian assets held in Europe, and Kaja Kallas said the decision belongs to Europeans. The same summit put off a decision on financing Ukraine, saying leaders "will revert to the issue in a timely manner".
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Trump signed the 16 October order that sets the Graham Act's duties and waives them under section 115(a), with a certification sent to Congress. He says the United States has not stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and on 11 October he said both sides had agreed to halt attacks on energy infrastructure.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.