Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Sep 22, 2025

Three government actions during the week of September 22, 2025, raise questions about whether the executive branch is overstepping boundaries set by Congress and legal tradition.

First, in remarks to reporters on September 26, the President confirmed plans to pursue additional prosecutions of former officials beyond the recent Comey indictment, saying "there'll be others" and describing targets as "corrupt radical-left Democrats." This could matter because a President publicly selecting prosecution targets may undermine the independence of the Justice Department — the separation that exists to ensure law enforcement serves the public rather than political interests. It is possible the President was simply expressing support for legitimate prosecutions and that the cases will proceed on their own legal merits. It is also possible the remarks were taken out of context or reflected rhetorical emphasis rather than operational direction. But the specificity and political framing of these statements goes beyond normal presidential commentary on law enforcement.

Second, a national security memorandum issued September 25 directs a new strategy against domestic terrorism that defines targets partly by ideology — including "anti-Americanism" and "anti-capitalism" — rather than solely by criminal behavior. While the memorandum cites real acts of political violence, defining investigation targets by their beliefs rather than their actions risks turning lawful political dissent into grounds for federal investigation. A plausible benign explanation is that existing legal protections, including judicial oversight and First Amendment constraints, will prevent the broadest interpretation; past administrations have issued similarly broad directives that were narrowed in practice.

Third, a TikTok enforcement delay extends the President's refusal to enforce a law Congress passed banning the app unless its ownership changes. This is the fourth such extension, and it now includes retroactive immunity for anyone who violated the law during the delay period. The administration argues this gives necessary time for complex ownership negotiations — a legitimate national security concern. But repeatedly suspending a law while blocking anyone else from enforcing it effectively cancels what Congress decided.

Taken together, these actions show the executive branch asserting broad control over who gets prosecuted, what beliefs get investigated, and which laws get enforced — decisions that are normally shared with Congress and the courts.

Limitations: This is AI-assisted analysis of public documents and cannot account for non-public legal deliberations, full context of remarks, or operational details. The concerns described are potential risks, not established violations.