Spending Money Congress Approved — Week of Oct 20, 2025

This week, two U.S. senators raised alarms about different ways the executive branch may be sidestepping Congress's control over how federal money is spent. While these are one-sided accounts from the Senate floor, the specific claims they make deserve attention.

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon described on October 21 what he called an unprecedented situation in Portland: federal agents deployed to the city despite a court finding that the government's justification was "untethered to the facts". He alleged that agents staged a confrontation with protesters—complete with professional videographers—to manufacture evidence of a "riot" that could justify their continued presence after courts issued restraining orders. This might matter because if the executive branch is spending taxpayer money on operations that courts have blocked and Congress didn't authorize, it could undermine the constitutional principle that only Congress decides how federal funds are used—a protection that exists to prevent any president from using government resources however they wish.

Separately, Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia warned on October 23 that a bill intended to pay federal workers during the government shutdown could give the President the power to pick which workers get paid and which don't—effectively letting the White House decide which government programs keep running based on political preference rather than what Congress funded.

Important alternative explanations to consider:

1. Partisan framing: Both speeches come from Democratic senators during a period of intense political conflict. Floor speeches are designed to persuade, not to present balanced evidence. The strongest factual claim—about a staged riot—comes from one side of an ongoing legal dispute.

2. Courts are working: Senator Merkley's own account describes federal judges blocking the administration's actions, which suggests the system of checks is functioning even if it's being tested.

3. The shutdown bill concern is hypothetical: Senator Ossoff voted to advance the bill and is flagging a potential problem to fix, not an abuse that has occurred.

Limitations: This analysis is based on senators' characterizations, not on court documents, executive orders, or independent reporting. It reflects what legislators said happened, which may differ from what investigation or adjudication ultimately confirms.