Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Sep 29, 2025

This week, a presidential memorandum directed the Attorney General to aggressively investigate and prosecute people and organizations linked to what the government broadly defines as "anti-fascist" activities. The directive, Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, doesn't just target people who commit violence—it also calls for investigating "funders," organizations, and their employees based on political characteristics, including views on capitalism, gender, race, and what the memorandum calls "traditional American views."

This might matter because when the President directs federal prosecutors to focus on groups defined by their political characteristics rather than specific criminal conduct, it could affect how Congress's law enforcement funding actually gets spent. Congress appropriates money for the Justice Department to enforce the law broadly—not to target specific ideological movements. If enforcement resources are channeled toward political opponents' networks based on viewpoint criteria, it could undermine both prosecutorial independence and Congress's control over how public money is used.

The memorandum does cite real acts of violence, including an assassination, attacks on federal officers, and a shooting at an ICE facility. Responding to genuine threats is a core presidential responsibility, and a possible explanation is that this directive aims to address an escalation in political violence. The language also limits action to what is "permissible by law." Another possibility is that the broad criteria are meant to prevent future threats by identifying warning signs early, not to punish beliefs. However, the document's ideological criteria—which go well beyond violent acts to describe belief systems—raise questions about whether this is counterterrorism or political targeting.

Separately, a fifth executive order delaying enforcement of the TikTok ban (Saving TikTok While Protecting National Security) pushed the deadline to nearly eleven months past what Congress set. Complex international deals take time, and sensitive diplomatic negotiations may require patience, but five delays without completion raises the question of whether a law is being effectively shelved through executive action.

In Congress, Senators debated the Eliminate Shutdowns Act, with one side arguing it would let the President ignore congressional spending bills indefinitely, and the other arguing it would simply end disruptive shutdowns.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis based on a small number of flagged documents. Executive directives do not always lead to the enforcement actions they describe, and their real-world impact may be significantly different from what the text suggests.