WASHINGTON — It’s been a year full of money grabs by an executive branch that puts less weight on Congress’ “power of the purse” than any since the Nixon administration.

But President Donald Trump’s latest budget maneuver — paying military salaries out of unrelated research funding — has so openly flouted federal law as to make lawmakers’ appropriations authority, and Congress itself, practically irrelevant, critics argue.

“President Trump has been ignoring Congress’ authority to say which funds should be spent since the early days of this administration. He is now increasingly disregarding the requirement of an appropriation before spending money,” said David Super, a Georgetown Law professor and expert in federal budget law.

“This renders the appropriations process essentially meaningless if the president continues along this course,” Super said.

Trump’s official legal justification is that the Pentagon is using funds that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth determined have a “reasonable, logical relationship” to military pay and benefits.

That “reasonable, logical” connection would be “consistent with applicable law,” including the so-called purpose statute, Trump’s directive released Wednesday says. That’s a longstanding part of federal budget law requiring that appropriations “shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.”

In an interview, a senior administration official fleshed out what they argue is the reasonable, logical use of unspent R&D funds to pay the troops.

The official said the military is a special category within the government that Congress always intended to keep fully funded. But because appropriations for military personnel accounts expired Sept. 30, the Pentagon had to tap unspent funds that have not yet expired to keep funding the military during a shutdown.

R&D accounts were the obvious place to find this money, given their two-year availability, and one logical connection is that personnel are needed to conduct that research, development, testing and evaluation that those accounts pay for.

‘Pale in comparison’

The argument doesn’t pass the smell test with critics on either side of the aisle, who argue it is simply an illegal power grab.

G. William Hoagland, a longtime Senate GOP budget aide, said Trump’s budget moves are “without precedent” and that President Richard Nixon’s flouting of spending directives — which led to the landmark 1974 budget law’s enactment — “pale in comparison.”

The 1974 law created the modern controls on presidential “impoundments,” requiring the executive branch to obligate funds consistent with enacted appropriations laws — unless Congress passes legislation rescinding certain funds identified by the president.

This year, Congress passed one such rescissions package. But Trump’s budget office has taken heat for freezing appropriated funds using its “apportionment” authority, or responsibility to ensure money isn’t burned through too quickly. In some cases, funding freezes have been blocked in court.

In one high-profile case that’s currently at the Supreme Court, Trump employed what’s known as a “pocket rescission,” or a loophole in the 1974 law requiring Congress to approve rescission requests within 45 days. In this case, the Trump OMB put a hold on $5 billion in foreign assistance funds within 45 days of Sept. 30, when the money expired.

Critics were already up in arms over that move, saying it’s a violation of impoundment law that basically neuters the power of the purse. Now, Trump has gone even further, they say.

Georgetown Law’s Super pointed out that OMB Director Russ Vought, the architect of Trump’s impoundment strategy, has argued that the 1974 law doesn’t require presidents to spend every penny of an appropriation. The law puts a ceiling on that spending, rather than setting a floor, Vought says.

Now, Super said, Trump “apparently does not even believe that” and instead contends the administration is free to spend money it doesn’t have or for purposes Congress did not intend.

Constitutional principles

The purpose statute is separate from the Antideficiency Act, which bars the administration from spending money in excess of available appropriations and is another cornerstone of federal budget law.

The Antideficiency Act is what requires the government to “shut down” during a funding lapse, other than special “excepted” functions critical to public safety and security, and programs that don’t rely on annual appropriations.

But the purpose statute is considered an equally bedrock constitutional principle, with its roots in Article I: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

The senior administration official argued tapping Pentagon R&D funds to pay the troops doesn’t run afoul of the ADA because there is clearly money available. It’s the “purpose” of it that’s in question, and Congress’ intention in providing Pentagon appropriations, including for two fiscal years, was to have a functioning military.

When there is a functioning military personnel account, that’s what would fund salaries, the White House argues. So when those accounts have no money, it has to come from somewhere else.

And the president’s constitutional duties as commander in chief adds to this being a special case, which Trump alluded to in his “national security memorandum” laying out the troop funding maneuver on Wednesday. The president has identified a need for that money to carry out his duty to defend the nation, the thinking goes.

Other factors in the decision: the Pentagon couldn’t use “general transfer authority” to simply shift the R&D money into personnel accounts, because of a restriction on transferring money into expired accounts.

In addition, there’s a constitutional roadblock to tapping Pentagon funds appropriated in the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation package (PL 119-21), which many expected would be the source of cash to pay the troops.

Article I restricts Congress’ power “to raise and support Armies” to appropriations that are available for no more than two years, as the R&D funds appropriated in the fiscal 2025 spending law are. The money appropriated in reconciliation is available for five years, making that a no-go.

‘King’ Trump?

It’s such a politically unassailable move — ensuring the troops got paid on time, despite the shutdown — that the Trump administration knew going in that any on-the-record critiques would lead to swift recriminations.

Predictably, no Democrats have stepped up to publicly oppose the funding shift in and of itself. But some question the legality of it and argue it further undermines trust in the appropriations process.

“I don’t know that he’s got legal authority ... to do any of this,” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., said Thursday. “We all want to pay the troops, but ... these complicated schemes to pay the troops that he’s using is just evidence of how badly they want to avoid negotiations.”

Even some Republicans are chafing a little at the erosion of lawmakers’ authority.

“It’s always preferable that Congress not only be consulted, but when it comes to appropriations, the Constitution requires the appropriations to be done by Congress,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who like Murphy is a senior Appropriations Committee member.

Bobby Kogan, a former Democratic budget aide, said Trump’s move to pay the troops using money that wasn’t appropriated for that purpose is “going to further neuter and further destroy our appropriations process.”

“At this point Trump is an appropriations king; he gets to do whatever he wants,” said Kogan, now with the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

As for Appropriations Committee members, Kogan said: “Obviously they have an existential question for themselves about what their job is.”

_____

(Peter Cohn and Aris Folley contributed to this report.)

_____

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. Visit at rollcall.com[1]. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

© Copyright 2025 CQ-Roll Call. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

Hackers may be sitting on a massive trove of government credentials — including emails and passwords tied to the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, and U.S. Army — according to new research[1] from NordVPN’s affiliate companies, NordPass and NordStellar.

The study found more than 53,000 passwords belonging to U.S. government employees exposed in publicly accessible databases and dark-web forums since early 2024. Among the most affected institutions include:

  • Department of State – 15,272 exposed passwords
  • Department of War (Defense) – 1,897 exposed passwords
  • U.S. Army – 1,706 exposed passwords
  • White House – Seven compromised passwords

One of the most commonly found passwords was “April@4142.” Researchers said it was the most widespread credential used by American civil servants.

“Exposure of sensitive data, including passwords of civil servants, is particularly dangerous,” Karolis Arbačiauskas, head of product at NordPass, said in a press release. “Such incidents may also pose serious risks to a country’s strategic interests.”

Leaked Passwords Reveal Wider Vulnerability

The research used NordStellar’s threat exposure management platform to analyze data from more than 5,500 government and municipal organizations across six countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany. It found that federal and local agencies alike remain vulnerable — from the Department of Veterans Affairs to state and city governments such as Illinois, Michigan, Utah, and Virginia Beach.

In total, NordPass identified 2,241 unique passwords among the 53,070 records, suggesting that many were reused across multiple accounts—or by multiple users—a known cybersecurity red flag.

“You can have state-of-the-art firewalls and zero-trust systems,” Marijus Briedis, chief technology officer at NordVPN, told Military.com. “But if employees reuse passwords, it defeats the purpose.”

The research also found passwords linked to NASA, the CIA, and the Government of the District of Columbia, further underscoring the exposure of government-affiliated credentials beyond traditional defense and diplomatic agencies.

U.S. Agencies Respond

A Department of State official told Military.com that the department has no record of receiving a notification from NordVPN regarding the reported exposure.

However, a State Department spokesperson said, “State is committed to cybersecurity across the department and we have instituted MFA (multi-factor authentication) and regularly rotate credentials to strengthen our safeguards against potential threats.”

A Department of Defense spokesperson referred Military.com to the U.S. Department of the Army for comment.

Military.com reached out to the Army as well as the White House for comment.

Nord Security’s Broader Findings

NordPass emphasized that the number of leaked passwords doesn’t necessarily equate to weak internal defenses.

“Larger organizations, with more employees, naturally have a bigger digital footprint,” Arbačiauskas said. “Sometimes a single malware infection on a personal device or the compromise of a popular third-party site can expose dozens of accounts.”

The company added that many of the breaches did not originate from government servers, but rather from employees using work emails to register on external websites—such as retail or cloud services—which were later breached.

NordPass Recommendations

To help mitigate risks, NordPass outlined several security recommendations for public agencies.

They include using long, unique passwords (of at least 20 characters, or multi-word passphrases); never reusing credentials between personal and professional accounts; implementing organization-wide password policies and breach scanners; and enforcing MFA for all internal and external systems.

The Password Problem Money Can’t Fix

Even as federal agencies invest billions in zero-trust architecture and advanced cyber defenses, researchers say one of the biggest weaknesses remains human behavior.

Every reused password or neglected update provides an opening for threat actors, and even one compromised credential can cascade into a high-level breach.

“You may not always defend against an attacker’s tools,” Briedis said, “but you can defend against your own mistakes.”

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[2].

Read more

This is a key question and impacts innovation in the military.  The problem centers on two overlapping frameworks: military rules and federal patent law. Each branch of the armed forces has policies, like Army Regulation 27-60 and Air Force Instruction 51-301, regarding reporting inventions made by service members while on duty. Nearly always, the government claims ownership or more than a free of charge license to inventions related to military work.

Over it all is the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, which establishes a federal right to impose secrecy orders on patent applications considered crucial to national security. Based on Patent and Trademark Office information, over 5,000 secrecy orders[1] will be in effect yearly, many regarding defense technologies. When an order is enforced, inventors may be barred from disclosing or profiting from their work - sometimes indefinitely.

For military inventors, this might mean a device they developed in a motor pool, a prison, or perhaps a forward operating base finds its way to some classified program without compensation or recognition.

Lt. Col. Kyle Schriefer, commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division, and Ms. Gihan Oraby, principal deputy director of Army Research Lab, Development Command, listen and take notes while Paratroopers present their inventions during Innovation Drop Zone 4.0 at the Airborne Innovation Lab on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, April 15, 2025. The annual IDZ competition encourages and supports innovation aligned with the Division’s efforts. During the competition, five teams presented their problem statement, innovative solution, and prototypes. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Prim Hibbard, DVIDS).

Pressure Mounted on Capitol Hill

The problem has refocused Pentagon attention as it looks at emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and cyber tools - places where junior enlisted soldiers and Guard members often bring crucial civil expertise. Members of the House Armed Services and Judiciary Committees have received testimony by military personnel and veterans that the military bureaucracy took their inventions with no acknowledgment.

One proposal considered would require the Department of War to establish a uniform inventor recognition program much like federal employee awards which assures official credit and sometimes cash for service members. Another would require yearly reporting on secrecy orders impacting service member inventions so it would be clear how frequently troops ideas are categorized from reach.

Supporters point out such reforms would be fair and would foster innovation from the ranks. "If we would like soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen to think creatively about resolving issues, they must understand their work will not simply go right into a black box," one congressional adviser told Military.com  

U.S. Airmen assigned to the 307th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron field test the Pylon Loading Fixture at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana Aug. 22, 2021. The PLF was invented by Master Sgt. John Slaughter, 307th Maintenance Group quality assurance chief inspector to create a safer and more efficient way to attach pylons to the B-52 Stratofortress (DVIDS).

Risks & Counterarguments

The Pentagon has typically resisted letting inventions loose due to national security and intellectual property concerns. Officials worry permitting way too many rights to individual inventors could bog down procurement programs or expose sensitive capabilities. The Defense Department also cites existing award programs, including the Military Outstanding Invention Awards given yearly by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering, as evidence troops are recognized.

Critics counter that those programs are little known and seldom reach top innovators. They assert that with no adequate safeguards and rewards the military risks losing a wellspring of ideas at a moment when peer rivals like China are investing heavily in defense innovation[2].

In both chambers, lawmakers have questioned whether those rules discourage innovation. With the Pentagon frequently investing in solutions including artificial intelligence[3], autonomous systems and cyber tools, some fear troops may be not as likely to share ideas if incentives were eliminated.

Some proposals floated in recent hearings consist of requiring the War Department to establish a formal recognition program for troop inventors and requiring greater transparency regarding secrecy orders impacting service member patents. Advocates say such reforms would be fair to the inventors and might increase military readiness by permitting more first line innovation.

From the motor pool to the plane line, American service members invent. But the system governing their inventions hasn't kept pace with contemporary defense technology. Congress has a choice now: Keep the existing system, where recognition is intermittent and patents usually fade into secrecy, or update the rules to give service members credit and compensation when their ideas help the nation defend.

The answer might determine if the next big device or process invented in uniform ever sees daylight - and if the military will continue to reap the benefits of the ingenuity of those closest to the struggle.

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[4].

Read more

China Diplomats Dating Banned

Associated Press | By ERIC TUCKER

Published

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior adviser at the State Department and expert on Indian and South Asian affairs is accused by the Justice Department of printing out classified documents and storing more than 1,000 pages of highly sensitive government records in filing cabinets and trash bags at home.

Ashley Tellis, who has also worked as a contractor in the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment, was charged in federal court in Virginia with the unlawful retention of national defense information after FBI agents who searched his home over the weekend found what they said was a trove of records marked as classified at the secret and top secret levels.

He was ordered detained Tuesday pending a detention hearing next week. One of his lawyers, Deborah Curtis, told The Associated Press that “we look forward to the hearing, where we’ll be able to present evidence" but declined to comment further.

An FBI affidavit cites several instances over the last month in which Tellis is alleged to have printed on government computers, or asked a colleague to print, classified documents on topics including U.S. military aircraft capabilities. Surveillance video shows him on several occasions exiting the State Department and a Defense Department facility with a briefcase in which he was believed to have stashed the printed-out papers, according to court documents.

Tellis also met multiple times with Chinese government officials[1] in recent years, according to the affidavit. Tellis arrived to one 2022 dinner with a manila folder while the Chinese officials he was meeting with entered with a gift bag, the FBI says. The affidavit says Tellis did not appear to have the manila folder in his possession when he left the restaurant, but does not accuse him of providing any classified information during his meetings with the Chinese.

Tellis is a prominent foreign policy expert with a specialty in Indian and South Asian affairs. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace lists him as a senior fellow and the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs. He also served on the White House National Security Council staff under Republican President George W. Bush[2].

___

This story has been corrected to reflect that Tellis is an expert on Indian and South Asian affairs, not Indian and South affairs.

Military Headlines[3] Department of Defense - DoD[4] Aircraft[5] China[6]

© Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …