re: Trump Administration Creativity: Bypassing Congress & VZL Oil Money in Qatar Bank Account

Continually proving that there has never been a POTUS before who actually understands business, commerce, and finance…

Reuters?

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

So then how would a President have any control over the money?

---

They will argue that it was never our money. It's a trust that was set up that happened to designate the Secretary of State as the trustee with the Secretary of the Treasury making the actual disbursements.

quote:

---

And you don’t see any issues here?

---

I see serious issues here, but I think the Administration knew that this "novel" approach stood a better chance of succeeding than convincing Congress to appropriate the money needed to absorb the risk for the oil companies.

Miller and company are so creative that I wouldn't be surprised if the money in Qatar isn't actually in a Treasury account. As wacky as it sounds, I wouldn't be shocked if we read "the Qataris have decided to underwrite this deal by paying...."

Ok but how would a POTUS have control over any funds not appropriated by Congress (and not coming out of a Treasury account)?

quote:

---

Ok but how would a POTUS have control over any funds not appropriated by Congress (and not coming out of a Treasury account)?

---

I'm with you. Has anyone seen the agreement between Venezuela and the US regarding the 30 - 50 million barrels of oil? Has anyone seen the "sale" of the oil which allegedly generated this first $50 million?

quote:

---

I wonder how much Paul singer was involved in creating all this. He got citgo on the cheap because their refineries weren't getting Venezuela crude to refine. He stands to cash in.

---

That's a great point. Also, he HATES fentanyl!

quote:

---

So how is this Constitutional?

---

After 4 years of licking Brandon's sack, you probably should retract this comment and just sit back down.

quote:

---

Ok but how would a POTUS have control over any funds not appropriated by Congress (and not coming out of a Treasury account)?

---

I have spent WAY too much time trying to find reporting on what seems to be an unconstitutional act. Having failed to find anything concrete, I will just use ChatGPT ["It" thinks the scheme is unconstitutional. I agree, but I think the use of the bank in Qatar is somehow a signal as to the intent to avoid scrutiny from American courts...wacky sounding I know....]

SUMMARY:
The President cannot unilaterally decide how Venezuelan oil proceeds are held or spent if the U.S. exercises control over them.
If he does:
It violates the Appropriations Clause
It violates federal fiscal statutes
It mirrors historical abuses the Clause was designed to prevent

###### Full ChatGPT response....

You’re asking exactly the right constitutional question — and the short answer is:
The President cannot, by himself, determine how that money is spent. If he is doing so, it is a violation of the Appropriations Clause.
Here’s the precise legal framework, without rhetoric.
1. The President has zero independent spending power
The Constitution is explicit:
Article I, §9, cl. 7 (Appropriations Clause)
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean:
Congress alone decides how public money may be used
The President’s role is execution, not allocation
There is no foreign-policy, emergency, or national-security exception unless Congress creates one by statute
This is black-letter constitutional law.
2. Why the “it’s still Venezuela’s money” argument fails
The administration’s position appears to be:
“The funds are still the sovereign property of Venezuela, so the Appropriations Clause doesn’t apply.”
That argument collapses under scrutiny.
A. Control is what matters, not labels
Courts look to who exercises dominion and control, not what the Executive calls the funds.
If:
The U.S. decides where the money is held
The U.S. decides when it moves
The U.S. decides whether, when, and for what purposes it is released
Then for constitutional purposes, it is public money under U.S. control, even if nominally held “for” Venezuela.
The Supreme Court rejected “trust,” “escrow,” and “custodial” labels as workarounds as far back as Reeside v. Walker (1850).
3. Holding money ? spending money — but both are regulated
A common misconception is that the Appropriations Clause only applies once dollars are spent.
That’s wrong.
The Clause also prohibits the Executive from:
Retaining funds
Conditioning access
Redirecting proceeds
Using custody as leverage
This is why:
Impoundment is unconstitutional
Executive slush funds are unconstitutional
Off-Treasury accounts without authorization are unconstitutional
Control alone triggers the Clause.
4. Executive orders cannot substitute for appropriations
An executive order:
Is not a statute
Cannot appropriate funds
Cannot create discretionary spending authority
The Supreme Court has been clear that executive orders may only operate within limits Congress has already set.
Absent a statute saying:
“The President may hold and disburse Venezuelan oil proceeds for X purposes,”
the President has no constitutional authority to decide how those funds are used.
5. Why foreign affairs powers don’t save this
Yes, the President has broad authority in foreign affairs — but not over money.
The Framers explicitly rejected giving the Executive fiscal discretion because:
It was the main abuse of monarchs
It collapses separation of powers
As Justice Jackson explained in Youngstown, presidential power is weakest when the President:
Acts without congressional authorization
Controls domestic legal consequences (including money)
This situation squarely fits Youngstown Category 3 — the “lowest ebb” of presidential power.
6. What would make it constitutional
This could be lawful only if Congress:
Authorized the seizure or sale
Created a statutory fund or trust
Specified permissible uses
Provided oversight and accounting
Appropriated or exempted the funds from normal Treasury deposit rules
None of that can be done unilaterally by the President.
7. Bottom line
The President cannot unilaterally decide how Venezuelan oil proceeds are held or spent if the U.S. exercises control over them.
If he does:
It violates the Appropriations Clause
It violates federal fiscal statutes
It mirrors historical abuses the Clause was designed to prevent
Calling the money “Venezuela’s” does not cure the defect if the President controls it.
If you want, I can:
Walk through how courts would analyze standing to challenge this
Compare this to Iran-Contra (the parallels are real)
Explain what remedies Congress actually has, practically, right now
Just tell me where you want to go next.