Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What legal authorities allow a president to reprogram funds or declare emergencies during a 2019 government shutdown?
Executive Summary
The president can declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act and thereby unlock a patchwork of statutory authorities—most prominently 10 U.S.C. § 2808 and certain Department of Defense reprogramming provisions—that have been used to reallocate funds for projects such as border barriers; however, those powers are constrained by the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, statutory limits on reprogramming, and congressional oversight mechanisms. Legal disputes in 2019 and afterward show sharp disagreements between the executive branch and Congress and have produced litigation and Congressional scrutiny over when and how funds may be reprogrammed [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the White House pointed to emergency law to shift money—and the statutes that make that possible
The administration relied on the National Emergencies Act as the procedural trigger and on specific statutory authorities to move funds once a national emergency was proclaimed. The NEA requires the President to declare an emergency and specify which statutory powers are invoked, and once that declaration is in place Congress has allotted a menu of emergency authorities across the U.S. Code that can be accessed [1] [4]. The most-cited authority for diverting military construction money is 10 U.S.C. § 2808, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use military construction funds for military missions when the President has declared a national emergency that requires the use of the armed forces; Congress identified Sections 8005 and 9002 of the DOD Appropriations Act as additional pathways used in 2019 [2] [5]. These statutes are administrable but conditional—they do not create unlimited authority and depend on accurate invocation and statutory compliance.
2. How reprogramming and transfers normally work—and where the law clamps down
Congress retains primary control over spending through the Appropriations Clause and through statutory reprogramming controls that require notification or prior approval for transfers among accounts. The general rules permit agencies to transfer funds within or among accounts pursuant to specific statutory authority, but many transfers are subject to advance notice or approval conditions; absent those, reprogramming can violate appropriations restrictions [6] [3]. In practice, agencies often seek Congress’s acquiescence or provide formal notifications; failure to do so has triggered audits, Comptroller General reports, and litigation. The law thus channels emergency flexibilities through defined statutory routes and oversight mechanisms designed to protect Congress’s appropriations prerogative.
3. What happened in 2019: the shutdown, withheld funds, and competing legal theories
During the 2019 shutdown the administration withheld certain planned emergency food-assistance releases and later pursued construction funding by invoking emergency powers; legal analysts argued the administration had avenues to transfer funds to sustain programs such as SNAP while others insisted statutory timelines and appropriations restrictions limited such moves [7] [2]. The executive’s reliance on the NEA plus military-construction diversion authorities produced immediate political and legal backlash, with critics contending that the Administration stretched emergency statutes to achieve policy aims the appropriations process had refused. Proponents asserted the statutory text and a valid emergency declaration justified the actions. These conflicting viewpoints underscore that lawful authority depends on statutory fit and procedural compliance, not on unilateral policy preference [7] [2].
4. Litigation, Congressional checks, and practical constraints that followed
Courts and Congress functioned as the principal brakes after the 2019 actions. Litigation challenged the scope of the emergency declaration and the use of particular funding streams, producing mixed outcomes and prolonged disputes; meanwhile Congress used appropriations riders, reporting requirements, and oversight hearings to constrain executive reallocations [2] [6]. The NEA itself requires the President to transmit the declaration to Congress and publish it; under the statute Congress retains the power to terminate an emergency by joint resolution. The Appropriations Clause framing ensures that courts will scrutinize executive action that changes the object or duration of spending without statutory authority. As a result, practical execution of reprogramming has often been piecemeal and litigated, not unconstrained.
5. Divergent expert readings and enduring ambiguities in the law
Legal scholars, executive-branch lawyers, and Congressional counsel offer divergent readings: some emphasize the NEA and specific military-construction authorities as clear statutory grants that permit reallocation during declared emergencies; others emphasize the Constitution’s appropriations protections and statutory notification requirements as limits that preserve congressional control [4] [3] [6]. These differences reflect both textual ambiguities in cross-referenced statutes and institutional incentives: the executive seeks flexibility to respond rapidly, while Congress defends granular control over policy via appropriations. The result is a contested legal battleground where legitimacy depends on judicial interpretation and political power as much as statutory text.
6. The big-picture takeaway: legal routes exist but are tightly circumscribed
A president can declare a national emergency under the NEA and thereby access authorities like 10 U.S.C. § 2808 and various reprogramming provisions, but those powers are neither carte blanche nor immune from constitutional or statutory checks; they require proper invocation, compliance with reprogramming rules, and remain subject to Congressional termination and judicial review [1] [5] [3]. The 2019 episode shows that legal authority to reprogram funds exists but is operationally limited by oversight, procedural prerequisites, and litigation risk, meaning future uses will continue to be contentious until clarified by statute or binding judicial precedent [2] [6].