Trump’s Shutdown Tactics: How the White House Found a “Secret” Funding Escape — and Why It May Be Illegal

                       

                                                                                          

              

1. The White House’s Controversial Shutdown Workaround

The United States is now deep into a federal government shutdown that has lasted more than two weeks, and this time the strategy from the White House looks very different.
Instead of waiting for Congress to reach a deal, President Donald Trump and his budget chief, Russell Vought, are using what some experts call “creative accounting” to keep the administration’s priorities running.

But here’s the twist — legal scholars warn that these moves might violate federal budget laws, including the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits spending money that Congress hasn’t officially approved.

Usually, during a shutdown, the government halts non-essential services until a funding bill passes. But the Trump administration seems determined to keep parts of the government — specifically, the military, law enforcement, and select federal programs — functioning, even if that means bending the rules.

Philip Joyce, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland, told MSNBC that transfers between government accounts are “generally prohibited unless Congress has specifically authorized them.” That’s why the administration’s latest financial maneuvers are drawing so much scrutiny.

---

2. Funding the Military and WIC Program — Using Unapproved Money

Earlier this month, the White House announced that it would use tariff revenue — money collected from Trump’s increased tariffs — to fund the WIC program (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).
While the move temporarily shielded the administration from criticism about neglecting low-income families, experts quickly pointed out that the decision had no clear legal basis.

Even more controversial is Trump’s decision to continue paying U.S. military service members during the shutdown without congressional approval.
Traditionally, Congress passes emergency bills to ensure troops are paid, but this time, Trump authorized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to pull billions from the Pentagon’s Research and Development budget — roughly $8 billion, according to NBC News — to cover paychecks.

That amount exceeds the $6 billion Congress normally allows for internal military transfers, making the decision legally questionable.
Trump even signed an executive order instructing the Pentagon to “use any available funds” to pay troops. Critics say this directly violates the Antideficiency Act — a law that enforces Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”

Legal analyst Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress explained that this action represents an unprecedented executive overreach into Congress’s power of the purse — a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution.

---

3. From Tariff Loopholes to FBI Paychecks: The White House Pushes Limits

Beyond the WIC and military payments, the Trump administration has reportedly also paid FBI agents during the shutdown — again, with no clear explanation of where the funds came from.
In a press appearance, Trump boasted, “We got the people we want paid, paid — the FBI, the military, the people we want paid.”

That statement highlights a growing concern: that the White House is selectively funding its preferred departments, bypassing normal budget processes.
Critics say this effectively turns the U.S. Treasury into a “White House ATM.”

Even within the Republican Party, there’s division. House Speaker Mike Johnson challenged Democrats to sue if they object, saying, “If the Democrats want to go to court and challenge troops being paid, bring it.”
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune introduced a standalone bill to fund military pay, but analysts believe it was more of a political move than a real fix.

Some budget experts think Vought may have found a technical loophole — a little-known clause from a 1935 law that lets the Agriculture Secretary use certain customs revenues to support food programs for low-income Americans. However, even this justification seems shaky. The law was originally written during the Great Depression to support struggling farmers, not as a workaround for shutdowns.

Timothy Meyer, a law professor at Duke University, summed it up clearly:
“Tariff revenue isn’t a slush fund. The president can’t just decide to spend it. It’s just another tax that must be allocated by Congress.”

---

4. A Constitutional Clash Waiting to Happen

The Antideficiency Act was created precisely to stop this kind of unchecked executive spending. Passed in 1870, it made it illegal for any federal official to spend or obligate money that Congress hasn’t approved.
Violating it can even result in criminal penalties — though not for the president himself, only for the officials who carry out his orders.

Still, enforcing that law requires a lawsuit, and the White House is betting that no one will risk the optics of suing to stop paychecks for troops or food aid for children.
That’s why, so far, Congress and the courts have mostly stayed silent, even as Trump and Vought continue to stretch the limits of executive power.

For now, the administration’s message is clear: as long as the money flows to their priorities, the rules can wait.
But the longer the shutdown continues, the more pressure will mount on Congress — and the courts — to decide whether this shutdown escape hatch is a clever workaround or a clear violation of law.

---

Final Thoughts: A Dangerous Precedent for Future Presidents

The situation reveals more than a political battle — it’s a constitutional test.
If Trump can redirect billions without congressional consent, future presidents could do the same, effectively eroding one of the nation’s most important checks and balances.

Whether this ends in court, in Congress, or at the ballot box, one thing is certain: the shutdown has turned into a showdown — not just over government funding, but over the very boundaries of presidential power.