Sign in

Scott Levy

@scott-levy.bsky.social
161 followers 174 following 23 posts

Former General Counsel for White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness & Response Policy; Deputy Health Policy Director for Senate HELP Committee; and staffer for Senate Finance Committee

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Scott Levy
Lawfare @lawfaremedia.org · 28/04/2026
The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for over 2 months, but the Trump administration has largely continued immigration enforcement. Scott Levy explains how Congress could constrain the president's unilateral ability to shift shutdown operations for political advantage.
lawfaremedia.org
The Homeland Security Shutdown and the Power of the Purse
How the executive blunts congressional leverage.
14620
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 25/04/2026
I appreciate you taking it on. Our proposed PoO intends to sweep more broadly than the Clause, not track it one for one. So if Congress concluded the 2+ year funding was unconstitutional, it would violate our proposed PoO. But it doesn’t follow that the inverse is true.
010
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 25/04/2026
If you want the Senate to vote on it by simple majority, you can use the existing constitutional point of order. This would at least force members to grapple with the issue, which is a good thing. But it wouldn’t meaningfully deter a majority from pushing unlawful funding through reconciliation
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 25/04/2026
We structured our point of order differently. It’s a prophylactic that captures the constitutional values even as it’s not calling on Congress to make a conclusive constitutional judgment. This turns the decision to the Parliamentarian and sets a higher vote threshold (2/3) for waiver.
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 25/04/2026
Kevin McNellis and I addressed this earlier this year, arguing that OBBA funding for ICE violates the Army Clause and proposing a new point of order to stop future violations: www.justsecurity.org/129908/congr...
justsecurity.org
The Army Clause: A Forgotten Constitutional Check on ICE, CBP, and the Pentagon
Why the One Big Beautiful Bill violates a forgotten constitutional check on funding standing armies and how Congress can enforce it now.
143
Reposted by Scott Levy
Matthew Lawrence @mblawrence.bsky.social · 24/03/2026
The debates about DHS and Iran appropriations assume the long term slush funds the OBBA gave the president for ICE and military ops are constitutional. That premise is mistaken, as @marknevitt.bsky.social and I explain in our draft, now forthcoming in GW Law Review! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
26232
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 20/03/2026
Please share the reading list when it’s done!
010
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 19/02/2026
The Constitution caps funding for standing armies at 2 years. The Founders feared a permanent federal force with coercive power over civilians. We now have two: ICE & CBP. And Republicans funded both for 4 years. New piece in Just Security w/ Kevin McNellis: www.justsecurity.org/129908/congr...
justsecurity.org
The Army Clause: A Forgotten Constitutional Check on ICE, CBP, and the Pentagon
Why the One Big Beautiful Bill violates a forgotten constitutional check on funding standing armies and how Congress can enforce it now.
031
Reposted by Scott Levy
Sam Bagenstos @sbagen.bsky.social · 29/01/2026
If you're interested in "slush funds" and Congress's power of the purse, which is of course timely as hell, but want an analysis that goes beyond [waves around at all this], see my new piece on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com
"Slush Funds" and Congress's Power of the Purse
If there's one point on which everyone agrees in appropriations law, it's that "slush funds" are bad. In the appropriations context, people tend to us
09541
Reposted by Scott Levy
Sam Bagenstos @sbagen.bsky.social · 07/01/2026
Good to see @chrismurphyct.bsky.social @warren.senate.gov @kaine.senate.gov and @merkley.senate.gov willing to use Congress's power of the purse to try to rein in Trump's actions in Venezuela. thehill.com/policy/defen...
thehill.com
1147
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 07/01/2026
Venezuelan oil is the latest piece of Trump’s shadow budget, funded by corporations and foreign governments, outside Congress’s control. Retaining & spending this revenue violates the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and Anti-Deficiency Act. How Congress could end it: www.justsecurity.org/125302/shado...
justsecurity.org
How to End Shadow Budget, Protect Congress’s Power of Purse
Unless Congress reasserts control over federal spending, the balance the framers designed could collapse into a self-financing presidency.
011
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 15/12/2025
If Commerce retains and spends these funds, it violates the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and the Antideficiency Act. This is yet another case of the Trump administration routing billions of dollars around Congress’s power of the purse. More here: www.justsecurity.org... h/t @brendannyhan.bsky.social
justsecurity.org
How to End Shadow Budget, Protect Congress’s Power of Purse
Unless Congress reasserts control over federal spending, the balance the framers designed could collapse into a self-financing presidency.
010
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 15/12/2025
But calling something a gift doesn’t make it one. To distinguish a payment from a “gift,” courts typically look to the payer’s intent. In tax law, a gift requires “detached and disinterested generosity.” Paying $1–$2M to obtain a visa is a transaction, not generosity.
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 15/12/2025
Under the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, any money paid to the fed. gov't must be deposited in the Treasury, unless Congress says otherwise. Congress gave Commerce narrow authority to accept and spend gifts. The administration is trying to use it to evade the MRA by labeling these payments as “gifts.”
111
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 15/12/2025
Trump’s “Gold Card” program is now live—effectively a visa-for-cash scheme—allowing $1–$2M “gifts” to the Commerce Department to help qualify for the Card. Commerce is directed to spend these “gifts” to promote commerce. Here’s why it's an illegal slush fund.
1128
Reposted by Scott Levy
Jim Manley @jamespmanley.bsky.social · 06/12/2025
So, uh/ who paid for this?
021
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 21/11/2025
The Trump administration is building a shadow budget — corporate, billionaire, and foreign money funding everything from a new White House ballroom to possibly even nuclear reactors. My new @justsecurity.org piece lays out fixes Congress should adopt now. www.justsecurity.org/125302/shado...
justsecurity.org
How to End Shadow Budget, Protect Congress’s Power of Purse
Unless Congress reasserts control over federal spending, the balance the framers designed could collapse into a self-financing presidency.
0115
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
For background on why this model likely violates multiple federal spending laws, here’s my earlier analysis of the Japan deal: www.justsecurity.org/123478/trump...
justsecurity.org
Trump’s Japan Deal and the Disappearing Appropriations Clause
The deal circumvents the Appropriations Clause and congressional safeguards, creating a system answerable only to the White House.
000
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
Trump didn’t issue an EO implementing this—highly unusual for him. Admin lawyers may have seen an EO as too legally vulnerable and too likely to draw scrutiny, so they kept the MOU itself as low-visibility as possible.
100
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
Press reports sketched the broad mechanics, but big questions remained unanswered, like what counts toward the $350B by Jan 2029 and how that squares with Korea’s $20B/year investment cap. Korea published the MOU + press release that fill in those gaps: www.korea.kr/briefing/pre...
korea.kr
(참고자료)한미 전략적 투자에 관한 양해각서 서명
보도참고자료 보도시점 배포 즉시 배포 2025.11.14.(금)   한미 전략적 투자에 관한 양해각서 서명 - 총 3,500억불 전략적 투자 운용방안 합의 - - 투자 2,00 - 정책브리핑 | 브리핑룸 | 보도자료
100
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
This setup lets the White House funnel billions in foreign financing into U.S. projects with no congressional appropriation, no statutory authority, and no treaty approval. It’s a foreign-funded parallel budget operating outside the Constitution and federal law altogether.
100
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
The U.S. announced a $350B deal with South Korea on Friday, and withheld the text. South Korea released it. It’s the Japan model again: foreign-funded spending chosen by the president, outside Congress, likely violating appropriations laws + the Treaty Clause. www.korea.kr/common/downl...
korea.kr
100
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 30/10/2025
$550 billion in Japanese funding. Directed by the President. Outside Congress’s control. My new @justsecurity.org piece explains how the agreement bypasses the Appropriations Clause and violates the laws that safeguard Congress’s power of the purse. www.justsecurity.org/123478/trump...
justsecurity.org
Trump’s Japan Deal and the Disappearing Appropriations Clause
The deal circumvents the Appropriations Clause and congressional safeguards, creating a system answerable only to the White House.
312152
Reposted by Scott Levy
Just Security @justsecurity.org · 20/05/2025
Trump’s law firm settlements may violate federal law that guards Congress’ power to control funds, @scott-levy.bsky.social explains. "They mark another step in the erosion of Congress’s power of the purse.” www.justsecurity.org/112943/trump...
justsecurity.org
How Trump’s Law Firm Settlements Circumvent Congress and Violate Federal Spending Laws
The Trump administration has operated outside the appropriations process and congressional oversight through its law firm settlements.
27535
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
On the regular interpretive issues, they definitely ask the Hill staff about intent and talk to the implementing agency to understand how it’d play out (unless the requesting staff prohibit it, which is usually a bad idea).
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
But this is just intuition. I never encountered this scenario with CBO. A budget committee, CBO, or OMB alum would hopefully know.
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
My intuition is that CBO wouldn’t incorporate an NPRM if their GC concluded it was clearly illegal. Significant litigation risk alone wouldn’t cut it. And I’d bet they’d try not to put that conclusion in writing. The Dec. 2024 report says the 50% rule is “typically” applied, so they have flexibility
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
Yeah, IDK. It’s an interesting question, especially for an NPRM as the policy could still get factored in at 50%, but couldn’t be challenged in court.
court.cm
110
Scott Levy @scott-levy.bsky.social · 01/03/2025
Not sure it answers your exact question but in the ballpark: www.cbo.gov/publication/...
cbo.gov
CBO Explains How It Incorporates Administrative and Judicial Actions When Updating Its Baseline Projections and Preparing Cost Estimates
NotesNotes This document is one in a series of primers explaining various elements of CBO’s work to support the budget process and to help the Congress make budget and economic policy. This and other ...
120