By the time this article was published, President Trump had fulfilled his promise and had vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. However, the reporter found that a special amendment had appeared in the National Defense Authorization Act a few months earlier and then mysteriously disappeared. What is the fishy story here? See the report made by Apollo.com for you.
On December 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto tweeted that President Trump vetoed the bill because Section 230 still had not been repealed, but also because he said the National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision that “repeals the President’s use of the Counterinsurgency Act.
So does the National Defense Authorization Act invalidate the Counterinsurgency Act? From Charesto’s tweet, it seems he quoted directly from the bill, but Apollo.com reporter checked the latest National Defense Authorization Act and did not find anything about the Counterinsurgency Act.
After investigation, the reporter found that there was indeed an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act in July that required the president to certify the Counterinsurgency Act to Congress before invoking it. However, this amendment was controversial in Congress and failed to be included in the final bill. The current Defense Budget Bill is exclusive of any language related to the Counterinsurgency Act.
The amendment, introduced by Democratic U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, essentially states that the President cannot invoke the authority of the Counterinsurgency Hair Act unless the President and Secretary of Defense can certify to Congress that the state in question is unable or unwilling to suppress the insurrection.
The debate began with opposition from Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado, who said, “This amendment is a major change to the Counterinsurgency Act after Thomas Jefferson first invoked it more than 200 years ago. Under this amendment, the president would not be able to act quickly and decisively in the event of a riot that is not under the control of a state or municipal government.”
He questioned the Democratic congressman who proposed the amendment, “Look at the headlines today, the violence and riots in Seattle and Portland that are no longer under the control of the mayors of those cities, does President Trump still have to certify something to Congress before he can invoke the Counterinsurgency Act?” What Ms. Escobar answered was not true: “It has nothing to do with when or if the president invokes the Counterinsurgency Act. This amendment is simply for the President and Congress to consult.” Congressman Lamborn replied, “Clearly, the lady is not willing to answer that question. If she can’t answer that question, then I don’t think there’s any need to take this bill seriously. She’s just playing political tricks.”
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from Florida, supported the amendment, but was opposed by Rep. Trent Kelly, a Republican from Mississippi, who said, “This amendment is dangerous. An amendment similar to this one, but not as restrictive, has been defeated in a bipartisan committee. This amendment is more restrictive than the one that was defeated and would further restrict the president and make it impossible for military personnel to search, and we need to defeat this amendment, which is a toxic case. And even if there is an amendment to be made, it’s not in this bill.”
Young Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Congresswoman Ilhan Omar also came out in support of the amendment, countered by Michigan Republican Congressman Jack Bergman, who said, “This amendment is dangerous and unnecessary. Plus, the debate over the Counterinsurgency Act is yet another attack on President Trump. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.”
Due to strong opposition from certain members of the House of Representatives, the amendment aimed at shackling President Trump to invoke the Counterinsurgency Act did not end up in this Defense Budget Bill. The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment regarding the Counterinsurgency Act was removed while the Defense Budget Bill was being debated in Congress.
However, the reporter found that this amendment to the Counterinsurgency Act, although literally gone, does not appear to have defeated attempts to arrogate military power to President Trump.
Recent Comments