I just perused the actual bill text and I find it difficult to believe that the President would veto the entire bill because of this one line item, the National Endowment of Democracy, especially since the bill funds the critical departments of the Treasury, Dept of State, and White House.
Read the bill.
Choose wisely.
It does get me thinking, however, about the notion of line item vetoes.
Edit. I asked Grok about it. Here's the response, in part.
The $315 million allocated to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) falls under Division B (as part of "Other Commissions" in the Department of State and Related Agencies section). Of this amount, $210.316 million is for NED's traditional and core institutes (e.g., the National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Center for International Private Enterprise, and American Center for International Labor Solidarity), while $104.684 million is for broader democracy programs. 👉This NED allocation represents about 0.41% of the bill's total funding.
...
Any attempt to unilaterally impound or withhold NED funds outside the ICA process would violate the Constitution and the ICA, potentially leading to legal challenges (as seen in past cases like Train v. City of New York). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) monitors compliance and reports violations to Congress.
So is this just funding for a one year period? Maybe NED can come under high scrutiny and be exposed ( just like USAID) over this coming year and be unfunded for the next year. This was probably a concession made in order to get something else more important to 'us' to stay in the bill, idk.
"Unfunded" means never having funds allocated or lacking necessary money, while "defunded" means funds that were previously available have been actively removed or canceled, with "unfunded" often implying a lack from the start (like an unfunded mandate or liability), and "defunded" suggesting a reduction or termination of existing money (like a program losing its budget)
I get your point but my assumption was that this is an annual budget that must be newly approved each year. I don't see govt (even doge) working quickly enough to make a case to defund NED mid-year, rather, they would not approve any monies for the following year. Your point will be remembered, however. (spellcheck doesn't recognize 'defund' btw)
I just perused the actual bill text and I find it difficult to believe that the President would veto the entire bill because of this one line item, the National Endowment of Democracy, especially since the bill funds the critical departments of the Treasury, Dept of State, and White House.
Read the bill.
Choose wisely.
It does get me thinking, however, about the notion of line item vetoes.
Edit. I asked Grok about it. Here's the response, in part.
...
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_24e2cad1-3df9-4828-a6c0-85643e5139d3
You are so smart.
So is this just funding for a one year period? Maybe NED can come under high scrutiny and be exposed ( just like USAID) over this coming year and be unfunded for the next year. This was probably a concession made in order to get something else more important to 'us' to stay in the bill, idk.
Eek. Pet peeve. DEfunded.
"Unfunded" means never having funds allocated or lacking necessary money, while "defunded" means funds that were previously available have been actively removed or canceled, with "unfunded" often implying a lack from the start (like an unfunded mandate or liability), and "defunded" suggesting a reduction or termination of existing money (like a program losing its budget)
Carry on. kek
o7
I get your point but my assumption was that this is an annual budget that must be newly approved each year. I don't see govt (even doge) working quickly enough to make a case to defund NED mid-year, rather, they would not approve any monies for the following year. Your point will be remembered, however. (spellcheck doesn't recognize 'defund' btw)
Defund is a real word!!! I swear! lol I was just being a grammar nazi all good fren