WE THE PEOPLE
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREIN RAISE GRIEVANCES AGAINST ALL 535 SEATED MEMBERS OF THE 119TH CONGRESS BASED ON BIPARTISAN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE LEGISLATION BELOW.
WE REQUEST THAT THE STATES GOVERNORS, ATTORNEYS GENERAL, AND ALL RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED PERSONNEL PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE ESCALATION TO ARTICLE III SUPREME COURT REVIEW, AND OPEN INVESTIGATION INTO ANY FOREIGN CAMPAIGN INVESTMENTS.
WE THE PEOPLE are writing to express our profound concerns about H.R. 5962, the Abducted Ukrainian Children Recovery and Accountability Act, which was introduced in the House on November 7, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. While the bill aims to authorize the Department of Justice and the Department of State to provide technical assistance, training, and support to the Government of Ukraine for the exchange of prisoners of war, release of civilian detainees, and return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children, it imposes burdensome reporting and briefing requirements that unduly constrain the President's authority in conducting foreign affairs and national security matters. This legislation represents a clear congressional overreach, inserting mandatory oversight that hampers executive discretion and undermines the separation of powers critical to our constitutional framework.
Violations of Presidential Powers Through Specific Bill Provisions
H.R. 5962 authorizes executive actions but layers them with restrictive reporting obligations and notifications to congressional committees, effectively allowing Congress to micromanage foreign assistance and intelligence-sharing decisions. Key provisions include:
● Section 3 (Authorization of Technical Assistance and Advisory Support): This section authorizes the Department of Justice and the Department of State to provide law enforcement and intelligence support to Ukraine, including training on biometric technologies, open-source intelligence analysis, secure communications, and database management. However, subsection (c)(3) mandates that, not later than 30 days after determining to provide assistance in any specified category, the Secretary of State must brief the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the amount of assistance obligated, the type of assistance, and any technology operationalized. This requirement for advance briefings subjects executive decisions on sensitive foreign aid to congressional scrutiny, potentially delaying or altering implementation based on legislative feedback.
● Section 4 (Coordination): Subsection (a) allows coordination with nongovernmental organizations, including grants, while subsection (b) permits the National Security Council to coordinate with various federal agencies. Yet, these authorizations are tied to the broader reporting framework, limiting the executive's ability to act independently without anticipating congressional involvement.
● Section 5 (Rehabilitation and Reintegration): Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary of State to provide support for medical, psychological, family reunification, and reintegration services for abducted Ukrainian children. However, subsection (b) requires a report to the aforementioned congressional committees not later than 60 days after enactment, detailing all current or planned foreign assistance programs for this purpose. This mandatory reporting impedes the President's flexibility in allocating resources swiftly during ongoing international crises.
● Section 6 (Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine): This authorizes the Department of State to support Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General with technical assistance for investigating and prosecuting cases involving abducted children and other atrocity crimes, but again, it operates within the bill's overarching emphasis on accountability through congressional oversight.
● Section 7 (Department of Justice): Authorizes the DOJ to provide assistance via its Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training, coordinated by the Resident Legal Adviser in Kyiv. This is similarly constrained by the bill's reporting mandates.
● Section 8 (Reports): Subsection (a) requires a report from the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, not later than 60 days after enactment, to multiple congressional committees (including Foreign Relations, Judiciary, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate, and Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, and Financial Services in the House) describing U.S. support for Ukraine's atrocity crimes investigations. Subsection (b) mandates another report from the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, outlining discrepancies in sanctions regimes between the U.S., U.K., and E.U. regarding those responsible for child abductions, along with U.S. efforts to align them. These dual 60-day reporting deadlines create administrative burdens that divert executive resources and allow Congress to influence ongoing foreign policy executions.
These provisions collectively impose a regime of mandatory disclosures and briefings that tie the executive's hands, preventing agile responses to dynamic international situations involving Ukraine and Russia.
Constitutional Violations
These restrictions explicitly violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which delineates the President's executive powers:
● Article II, Section 2 vests the President with authority over foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. By requiring briefings and reports on assistance determinations (e.g., Section 3(c)(3)) and sanctions alignments (Section 8(b)), the bill encroaches on this prerogative, limiting the President's ability to conduct diplomacy and intelligence operations without congressional interference, particularly in sensitive matters like prisoner exchanges and child repatriation.
● Article II, Section 3 obligates the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The pervasive reporting requirements (e.g., Sections 5(b) and 8) hinder this duty by mandating detailed submissions to Congress within tight timelines, effectively subjecting foreign aid implementation to legislative micromanagement and potential delays.
While Congress holds appropriations and oversight powers under Article I, H.R. 5962 exceeds these by transforming authorizations into tools for ongoing control over executive foreign policy, violating the separation of powers.
Congressional Overreach as a Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty
This overreach by Congress poses a significant threat to our democracy and national sovereignty. By demanding frequent briefings and reports on executive actions in foreign affairs, the bill creates opportunities for partisan delays and second-guessing, weakening the U.S. position in global negotiations and exposing vulnerabilities in our support for allies like Ukraine. Such mandates could slow critical assistance during wartime, compromising our ability to act decisively and maintain sovereign independence in international relations.
Call to Action
We urge you to oppose H.R. 5962 or advocate for amendments that remove these intrusive reporting requirements and restore executive authority. Our nation's strength in foreign affairs depends on a balanced government where the President can act without excessive legislative constraints. Heeding Washington's timeless warnings is crucial to protecting democracy from internal discord and external dependencies.
WE THE PEOPLE are writing to express my grave concerns about H.R. 5167, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which was introduced on September 8, 2025, reported from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on November 28, 2025, and is pending further consideration in Congress. While this bill purports to authorize appropriations for intelligence activities, it includes numerous provisions that impose excessive oversight, mandatory notifications, and restrictions on executive actions, thereby undermining the President's constitutional authority to manage national security, conduct foreign intelligence operations, and execute laws faithfully. This congressional micromanagement not only hampers the executive's flexibility in responding to threats but also represents an overreach that threatens the balance of powers essential to our democracy and national sovereignty.
Violations of Presidential Powers Through Specific Bill Provisions
H.R. 5167 is filled with sections that require advance notifications, reports, and approvals from congressional committees, effectively inserting Congress into the day-to-day operations of the intelligence community and limiting the President's discretion in critical areas such as counterintelligence, technology adoption, and foreign relations.
In Title I (Intelligence Activities), provisions set the stage for restrictions:
● Section 102 establishes a classified Schedule of Authorizations, which must be made available to congressional committees and the President, but limits public disclosure and ties funding to congressional oversight, constraining the executive's ability to reallocate resources without legislative interference.
● Section 103 authorizes funds for the Intelligence Community Management Account but subjects them to detailed congressional scrutiny, including classified annexes that require committee access.
Title III (Counterintelligence Reform) significantly expands congressional involvement:
● Section 302 amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish the National Counterintelligence Center, mandating quarterly briefings and annual reports to congressional intelligence committees on task force activities (Section 434), a national counterintelligence outlook every 5 years (Section 431), a National Counterintelligence Strategy every 3 years with implementation plans (Section 432), and semiannual reports on unauthorized disclosures (Section 415(e)). These requirements force the executive to divert resources to constant reporting, impeding timely decision-making in counterintelligence matters.
● Section 303 and Section 304 include transition provisions and conforming amendments that enhance congressional oversight by transferring functions and requiring notifications for vulnerabilities within 30 days (Section 434(c)).
In Title IV (General Intelligence Community Matters), further encroachments occur:
● Section 407 requires 30-day notices to congressional intelligence committees on the impact of diplomatic and consular post closings, including mitigation plans, directly interfering with the President's management of foreign affairs and intelligence collection abroad.
● Section 408 mandates that the President issue or update policies on using classified data for AI training within 180 days, maximizing data use while protecting information, which imposes legislative directives on executive policy-making.
● Section 409 requires guidance for accelerating AI reviews and notifications to committees if reviews exceed 60 days, and micromanaging technology deployment in intelligence operations.
● Section 410 demands the development of metrics for technology adoption, with briefings to committees within one year, limiting executive innovation without congressional input.
Title V (Matters Relating to Elements of the Intelligence Community) extends restrictions:
● Section 501 (Subtitle A) requires guidance on novel expenditures under the Central Intelligence Agency Act, with briefings to committees within 60 days.
● Section 512 (Subtitle B) mandates oversight of vendor support for clandestine activities, including 7-day notices for exclusions and certifications/briefings to committees within 180 days and one year.
● Section 521 (Subtitle C) requires 5-day notices to congressional leadership and committees on counterintelligence assessments of federal candidates or officeholders, inserting Congress into sensitive executive investigations.
Title VI (Open-Source Intelligence Matters) adds more layers:
● Section 603 designates an official for overseeing commercially available information acquisitions, with annual briefings to committees, preventing duplication but requiring deconfliction that could delay executive actions.
These provisions collectively impose a web of reporting obligations and restrictions that slow executive responses to intelligence threats, particularly those involving foreign actors.
Constitutional Violations
These measures explicitly violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which vests executive power in the President:
● Article II, Section 2, empowers the President as Commander in Chief and grants authority over foreign affairs, including intelligence gathering. Provisions like Section 407 on diplomatic post closings and Section 302's extensive counterintelligence reporting requirements encroach on this by mandating notifications and strategies that limit diplomatic and security flexibility, allowing Congress to second-guess executive decisions in real-time.
● Article II, Section 3 requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill's pervasive notification mandates (e.g., Sections 409, 410, 512, 521) and policy directives (e.g., Section 408) hinder this duty by subjecting intelligence implementation to congressional delays and approvals, effectively granting legislative veto power over executive operations.
Although Congress authorizes appropriations under Article I, Section 9, H.R. 5167's detailed oversights transform this power into unconstitutional control over executive functions, violating the separation of powers.
Congressional Overreach as a Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty
This overreach threatens our democracy by creating inefficiencies that could compromise national security, such as delayed AI deployments or counterintelligence responses, making the U.S. more vulnerable to foreign adversaries. By demanding constant briefings and reports, Congress prioritizes partisan oversight over unified action, eroding the executive's ability to protect sovereignty in an increasingly complex global environment.
Call to Action
WE THE PEOPLE urge you to oppose H.R. 5167 or support amendments that eliminate these intrusive provisions and restore constitutional balance. Our nation's security depends on an empowered executive free from excessive legislative constraints. Let us honor Washington's warnings to safeguard democracy from internal strife and external vulnerabilities.
Urgent Concerns Regarding H.R. 7006 and Its Infringement on Presidential Authority
WE THE PEOPLE are writing to voice our serious concerns about H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026, which passed the House on January 14, 2026, and is now under consideration in the Senate. While this legislation aims to fund critical operations in financial services, general government, national security, and the Department of State for FY2026, it embodies a profound congressional overreach that restricts the President's ability to manage executive agencies, conduct foreign policy, and respond to national security needs. Through mandatory notifications, reprogramming limits, and prohibitions on fund use, the bill subjects the executive decisions to excessive legislative scrutiny, undermining the separation of powers and our nation's capacity for agile governance.
Violations of Presidential Powers Through Specific Bill Provisions
H.R. 7006 is structured into Divisions A and B, with numerous provisions that impose rigid controls on executive discretion, particularly in financial management, foreign affairs, and national security.
In Division A (Financial Services and General Government), restrictions target Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, and independent agencies:
● Section 608 prohibits reprogramming of funds that creates new programs, eliminates existing ones, or augments programs by more than $5 million or 10% without prior approval from congressional committees. This limits the executive's ability to adapt funding in response to emerging priorities, such as in the IRS or Treasury operations.
● Section 114 (in Title I, Treasury) allows transfers up to 2% between appropriations but requires treating them as reprogramming under Section 608, necessitating committee approvals. Similarly, Section 126 caps transfer at 5% for IT modernization in the Treasury, with prior approval required.
● Section 527 (GSA) mandates notifications for any deficiencies or unneeded amounts in construction projects, prohibiting transfers without congressional input, which hampers efficient management of federal buildings and resources.
● In Title II (Executive Office of the President), provisions require 15-day notifications for economic impact statements and limit transfers to 10% with committee approval, directly constraining the President's administrative flexibility.
Division B (National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs) extends these encroachments into foreign policy and security:
● Section 7015(b) requires 15-day advance notifications for reprogrammings exceeding $1 million or 10%, including for relocations or reductions in programs under Titles I–VI, affecting the Department of State, USAID, and bilateral assistance.
● Section 7009(a) limits transfers to 5% between accounts in Titles II–V, with no single increase exceeding 10%, and treats them as reprogrammings needing notification.
● Section 7015(a), (c), (d) mandates notifications for new programs, suspensions, reorganizations, or integrations with DoD, curtailing the executive's ability to adjust diplomatic or security initiatives swiftly.
● Country-specific restrictions, such as Section 7047(a)–(c) prohibiting assistance to Russia or supporters of annexations, and Section 7048(c)–(e) banning funds for certain UN entities, impose rigid foreign policy mandates without executive waiver flexibility in many cases.
● General prohibitions like Section 7007 (no aid to Cuba, North Korea, Iran) and Section 7008 (no funds for governments from coups) further tie the President's hands in diplomatic engagements.
These provisions collectively micromanage executive operations, requiring constant congressional oversight for routine adjustments and limiting responses to international crises.
Constitutional Violations
These restrictions directly violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the President's executive powers:
● Article II, Section 2 grants the President authority over foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Provisions like Sections 7015, 7009, and country-specific bans (e.g., Sections 7047, 7048) infringe on this by mandating notifications and prohibitions that constrain diplomatic and security decisions, effectively allowing Congress to dictate foreign policy execution.
● Article II, Section 3 obliges the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill's reprogramming and transfer limits (e.g., Sections 608, 7015) hinder this duty by imposing approval requirements and notifications that delay or block executive implementation, turning appropriations into a vehicle for ongoing legislative control.
While Congress has appropriations power under Article I, Section 9, H.R. 7006's detailed mandates exceed this authority, encroaching on executive functions and violating the separation of powers.
Congressional Overreach as a Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty
This overreach by Congress poses a grave threat to our democracy and national sovereignty. By demanding advance approvals and notifications for fund shifts, the bill creates bureaucratic hurdles that could delay critical actions, such as reallocating resources during a diplomatic crisis or national security threat, thereby weakening U.S. leadership abroad and exposing vulnerabilities.
Call to Action
WE THE PEOPLE urge you to oppose H.R. 7006 in its current form or advocate for amendments that restore executive discretion and uphold constitutional balance. Our democracy thrives on the separation of powers, not legislative dominance that stifles effective governance. Heeding Washington's timeless warnings is essential to preserving our nation's unity and independence.
WE THE PEOPLE are writing to express our profound concerns about H.R. 6938, the Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026, which has passed both the House and Senate and awaits presidential action as of January 17, 2026. While intended to fund essential government operations for FY2026, this bill constitutes a blatant overreach by Congress, imposing excessive restrictions that undermine the President's constitutional authority to execute laws, manage executive agencies, and conduct foreign policy. By mandating congressional notifications, approvals, and prohibitions on fund use, the legislation micromanages executive functions, threatening the balance of powers and our nation's ability to respond agilely to domestic and international challenges.
Violations of Presidential Powers Through Specific Bill Provisions
H.R. 6938 is replete with provisions across its divisions that curtail executive discretion, particularly in areas of national security, energy policy, environmental management, and justice administration. These restrictions often require advance notifications or approvals from congressional committees, effectively granting Congress veto power over routine executive decisions.
In Division A (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies), several sections limit the President's ability to allocate resources flexibly:
● Section 103 caps transfers at 5% of any appropriation, with no single increase exceeding 10%, and treats such actions as reprogrammings under Section 505, which demands 15- to 30-day advance notifications to congressional committees for capital assets or program changes. This hampers the Department of Commerce's ability to adapt to emerging economic or technological needs, such as in NOAA's operations.
● Section 505 (cross-referenced throughout) requires 30-day notifications for any reprogramming that creates or eliminates programs, increases funds or personnel by more than $500,000 or 5%, or relocates offices—directly impeding administrative management in agencies like the FBI, DOJ, and NIST, where emergent needs (e.g., litigation or security threats) demand swift action.
● In the Department of Justice subsections, Title II prohibits transfers for specific programs without treating them as reprogrammings (e.g., no transfers under Section 205 for FBI salaries), and mandates spending plans submitted to committees, restricting the executive's implementation of law enforcement priorities.
Division B (Energy and Water Development) extends these encroachments into critical infrastructure and national security:
● Section 101(a) prohibits reprogramming for new or eliminated programs in the Corps of Engineers, capping increases at 15-25% with strict limits (e.g., $3M for construction), and requires 60-day reports on baselines—limiting the President's oversight of water projects and emergency responses.
● Section 306 bans Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) drawdowns or sales to entities influenced by the Chinese Communist Party or exports to China, constraining the President's foreign policy tools in energy diplomacy and crisis management.
● Section 307(a) and Section 308 further restrict awards over $10M to "entities of concern" and prohibit admission of Russian or Chinese citizens to nuclear facilities without 30-day notifications, interfering with executive decisions on international collaboration and security.
In Division C (Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies):
● Section 201(a-c) bars reprogramming for new programs or increases over 15%/$500,000 in the Department of the Interior, with quarterly reports required—undermining efficient management of public lands and resources.
● Section 301(a-g) in the Department of Energy prohibits initiating programs without full funding, demands 3- to 30-day notifications for grants or reprogrammings over $5M/10%, and bans creating or eliminating programs without congressional approval, severely limiting policy implementation in energy sectors.
● General provisions like Section 409 require notifications for land acquisitions,
and Section 421 mandates approvals for any reprogramming, extending congressional control over environmental and interior policies.
These measures collectively tie the executive's hands, preventing proactive adjustments in response to evolving threats in energy security, environmental protection, and foreign relations.
Constitutional Violations
Such provisions flagrantly violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which vests executive power in the President:
● Article II, Section 2 empowers the President to conduct foreign affairs and serve as Commander in Chief. Restrictions like those in Sections 306-308 on SPR sales and international access to facilities encroach on this authority, limiting diplomatic leverage and national security decisions that should remain executive prerogatives.
● Article II, Section 3 obligates the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill's pervasive reprogramming limits (Sections 101, 201, 301, 505) and notification requirements subject executive implementation to congressional micromanagement, transforming appropriations into a mechanism for ongoing legislative interference rather than mere funding.
Although Congress holds appropriations authority under Article I, Section 9, H.R. 6938 exceeds this by imposing granular controls that blur the separation of powers, akin to unconstitutional line-item vetoes in reverse—allowing Congress to dictate executive operations without formal legislation.
Congressional Overreach as a Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty
This legislative overreach endangers our democracy by fostering gridlock and weakening the executive's capacity to safeguard national interests. By requiring constant congressional approvals, the bill slows responses to crises, from energy shortages to environmental emergencies, thus compromising U.S. sovereignty in a volatile global landscape.
Call to Action
We implore you to oppose or seek amendments to H.R. 6938 to preserve constitutional balance. Our nation's strength depends on an empowered executive free from undue legislative intrusion. Let us heed Washington's warnings to protect democracy from internal divisions and external vulnerabilities.
WE THE PEOPLE write to express our deep concerns about H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, which was signed into law on November 12, 2025. While presented as a necessary measure to avert a government shutdown and provide fiscal continuity, this legislation represents a significant overreach by Congress that directly impedes the constitutional powers of the President of the United States. By imposing stringent restrictions on executive discretion, particularly in areas of national defense, foreign affairs, and administrative management, the bill undermines the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution and poses a threat to our nation's democracy and sovereignty.
Violations of Presidential Powers Through Specific Bill Provisions
H.R. 5371's Division A, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, extends funding at FY2025 levels but includes numerous provisions that curtail the President's ability to execute laws faithfully and respond dynamically to emerging threats. For instance:
● Section 102(a) prohibits the Department of Defense from initiating new production of items not funded in FY2025, increasing production rates beyond those sustained in the prior year, or starting/resuming any project, activity, or operation without prior congressional authorization. This directly hampers the President's role as Commander in Chief, limiting the executive's capacity to adapt military strategies or procure necessary resources in response to evolving global challenges.
● Section 104 further restricts the executive by barring the use of funds for any project or activity not available during FY2025. Combined with Section 109, which prevents high initial rates of operation or rapid distribution of funds, these measures effectively tie the President's hands, preventing proactive measures in defense and other critical areas.
● Section 120 imposes a blanket prohibition on reductions in force (RIFs) for federal employees, mandating notifications and backpay for any such actions, with limited exceptions. This micromanagement of workforce decisions encroaches on the executive's administrative authority, making it difficult for the President to streamline operations or reallocate personnel as needed for efficiency or national priorities.
These restrictions extend to foreign affairs, where Section 113 provides limited waivers but maintains prohibitions on foreign contracts (e.g., Section 111 limiting foreign architect contracts and Section 112 restricting foreign contractors in the Pacific). In Division B (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations), funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service and programs like Food for Peace ($1.2 billion) and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education ($240 million) is tightly controlled, requiring congressional notifications and monitoring (e.g., Section 741 for aid oversight). Such provisions limit the President's flexibility in conducting foreign policy, potentially hindering diplomatic efforts or responses to international crises.
Constitutional Violations
These impediments explicitly violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which delineates the executive powers of the President:
● Article II, Section 2 designates the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, granting authority over military decisions. By restricting new defense initiatives and production (Sections 102 and 104), Congress oversteps its Article I appropriations role, infringing on the President's command authority and risking national security.
● Article II, Section 3 requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill's numerous reprogramming and transfer limitations (e.g., Section
716 requiring 30-day congressional approval for shifts over $500,000 or 10%), along with prohibitions on office closures or relocations without notice (Section 779 in USDA), undermine this duty by subjecting executive implementation to excessive congressional veto-like oversight.
While Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I, Section 9 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"), H.R. 5371's granular controls represent an unconstitutional expansion, transforming appropriations into a tool for micromanaging executive functions. This blurs the separation of powers, allowing legislative interference in day-to-day governance.
Congressional Overreach as a Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty
This overreach by Congress threatens the foundational principles of our democracy. By constraining the executive's ability to act decisively—especially in defense and foreign affairs—the bill weakens our nation's sovereignty, making us more vulnerable to external threats. The partisan wrangling that led to the October 2025 government shutdown, resolved only after weeks of deadlock, exemplifies how such legislation exacerbates divisions, prioritizing political gamesmanship over unified governance.
Call to Action
We urge you to reconsider the implications of H.R. 5371 and advocate for reforms that restore balance to our branches of government. Upholding the Constitution demands vigilance against such encroachments, ensuring the President can fulfill their duties without undue legislative interference. Our democracy's strength lies in checks and balances, not in one branch's dominance.
WE THE PEOPLE are writing to express profound concerns over specific provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S. 1071), which has been enacted as Public Law No: 119-60. These provisions impose undue restrictions on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Such encroachments undermine the Executive Branch's ability to direct military strategy, deployments, and national security policy with the flexibility required to respond to dynamic global threats. Below, I detail each implicated section, providing context from the bill and explaining how it contravenes presidential powers, with references to relevant constitutional provisions.
Section 1249: Oversight of United States Military Posture in Europe This section requires oversight and reporting on U.S. military posture in Europe, including assessments of force structure, basing, and readiness. It prohibits reductions below 76,000 forces for over 45 days, divestment or return of land/facilities as of June 1, 2025, or movement of equipment valued over $500,000 without certification of national security interest, NATO consultations, and impact assessments. This violates Article II, Section 2, which vests the President with authority as Commander in Chief to command and deploy armed forces. By mandating congressional certifications and consultations for routine military adjustments, it handicaps the President's discretion in foreign affairs and military operations, potentially delaying responses to emerging threats and infringing on the Executive's plenary power over troop deployments as recognized in cases like United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (299 U.S. 304, 1936).
Section 1268: Oversight of United States Military Posture on the Korean Peninsula. This provision establishes oversight and reporting requirements for U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula, mandating a minimum of 28,500 troops in the Republic of Korea and prohibiting reductions or deviations from wartime operational control transition plans without certification, ally consultations, and impact assessments. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by restricting the President's authority to reposition forces as Commander in Chief, thereby limiting executive flexibility in alliance management and deterrence strategies against North Korean threats. Such statutory thresholds encroach on the President's inherent power to conduct foreign relations and military affairs without legislative micromanagement.
Section 1507: Prohibition on the Elimination of Certain Cyber Assessment Capabilities for Test and Evaluation. This section prohibits the elimination or reduction of specific cyber assessment capabilities within the Department of Defense. By imposing a blanket prohibition, it violates Article II, Section 2, as it curtails the President's ability as Commander in Chief to reorganize and prioritize defense resources, including cyber capabilities, in response to evolving national security needs. This legislative directive interferes with executive discretion in managing military readiness and technological assessments.
Section 1546: Limitation on the Divestment, Consolidation, and Curtailment of Certain Electronic Warfare Test and Evaluation Activities. This provision limits divestment, consolidation, or curtailment of electronic warfare test activities until a report, independent review, and certification are provided to congressional committees. It impedes Article II, Section 2 powers by requiring congressional approval mechanisms for internal defense reorganizations, thereby handicapping the President's authority to streamline military testing and evaluation programs as Commander in Chief.
Section 1655: Matters Related to Integrated Air and Missile Defense Capabilities to Defend Guam. This section addresses funding and integration for missile defense systems on Guam, prohibiting the obligation of FY2026 funds for removals without notice and limiting funds for certain travel until briefings are provided. It violates Article II, Section 2 by conditioning executive actions on congressional notifications and briefings, restricting the President's discretion in deploying and maintaining defensive systems as Commander in Chief and in managing foreign policy related to Pacific alliances.
Section 1635: Organizational Realignment with Respect to Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical and Biological Defense Policy and Programs; Limitation on Availability of Certain Funds. This provision requires realignment of offices for nuclear deterrence and limits funds for travel until compliance certification and briefings. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by mandating specific organizational structures within the Executive Branch, thereby infringing on the President's authority to structure the Department of Defense and manage nuclear policy as Commander in Chief.
Section 1638: Limitation on Availability of Funds Pending Notification of Tasking Authority Delegation. This section limits funds for Air Force travel until notification of delegation completion and requires reports on Coast Guard skills. By tying funding to notifications, it violates Article II, Section 2, handicapping the President's ability to delegate authorities and manage interagency tasks as head of the Executive Branch.
Section 552: Inclusion of Space Force Education Programs in Definitions Regarding Professional Military Education. This provision amends definitions to include Space Force programs in professional military education and imposes requirements on aids to navigation. It impedes Article II, Section 2 by legislatively dictating educational structures within the military, limiting the President's discretion as Commander in Chief to define training and education priorities.
Section 565(b): Notification of Military Sex Offenders at Military Installations. This subsection requires notifications about sex offenders and amends policies on misconduct at academies. It violates Article II, Section 2 by imposing mandatory reporting and policy requirements that constrain the President's management of military personnel and installations as Commander in Chief.
Section 589D(c)(2): Pilot Program to Increase Payments for Child Care Services in High-Cost Areas. This subparagraph specifies requirements for a pilot program's second phase, including evaluations. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by micromanaging executive pilot programs for military welfare, limiting presidential discretion in administering benefits and support systems.
Section 652: Defense Commissary System and Exchange System: Patronage;
Privatization. This section amends provisions on patronage and privatization in commissary systems and requires record retention. It handicaps Article II, Section 2 powers by restricting decisions on military support systems, infringing on the President's authority to manage logistical and welfare aspects of the armed forces.
Section 912(g)(3): Joint Interagency Task Force 401. This subparagraph addresses reporting for interagency coordination and requires reviews of memoranda. It violates Article II, Section 2 by mandating interagency structures, limiting the President's flexibility in coordinating national security task forces.
Section 1253(f): Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience. This subsection requires reports on Indo-Pacific partnerships and lighthouse lists. It impedes Article II, Section 2 by requiring executive reporting on foreign partnerships, encroaching on the President's treaty-making and foreign affairs powers.
Section 1692(c)(2): Prohibition on Access to Department of Defense Cloud-Based Resources by Certain Individuals. This subparagraph specifies exceptions to access prohibitions. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by legislatively controlling access to defense resources, restricting presidential management of information security.
Section 1828(c)(4): Review of Commercial Products and Commercial Services Acquisition Approach. This subparagraph mandates cost analyses for acquisitions. It violates Article II, Section 2 by dictating procurement processes, limiting the President's authority over defense acquisitions as Commander in Chief.
Section 1833(e): Bridging Operational Objectives and Support for Transition Program. This subsection requires reporting on program effectiveness. It handicaps Article II, Section 2 powers by imposing oversight on transition programs, infringing on executive operational discretion.
Section 2887(e): Pilot Program on Use of Advanced Manufacturing Construction Technologies at Military Installations. This subparagraph specifies evaluation requirements for a pilot program. It impedes Article II, Section 2 by micromanaging infrastructure pilots, limiting presidential control over military installations.
Section 2888(f): Pilot Program on Procurement of Utility Services for Installations of the Department of Defense through Area-wide Contracts. This subsection mandates reports on program outcomes. It violates Article II, Section 2 by requiring evaluations that constrain executive procurement decisions.
Section 311: Inclusion of Information About PFAS Investigation and Remediation in Annual Report on Defense Environmental Programs. This section requires PFAS-related details in annual reports. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by mandating environmental reporting, encroaching on presidential management of defense programs.
Section 3123: Department of Energy Report on Expansion of Other Transaction Authorities for National Nuclear Security Administration. This provision requires reports on expanding authorities for NNSA. It handicaps Article II, Section 2 powers by dictating nuclear security administration, limiting executive discretion.
Section 7262: Not Explicitly Titled (Division G Coast Guard Provisions) This section addresses Coast Guard authorizations and policies on drug trafficking. It violates Article II, Section 2 by imposing policies on maritime interdiction, infringing on the presidential command over Coast Guard operations.
Section 7277: Retention of Certain Records (Division G Coast Guard Provisions) This provision mandates record retention. It impedes Article II, Section 2 by controlling administrative aspects of the Coast Guard under presidential authority.
Section 7511(a): Covered Misconduct (Division F Intelligence Provisions) This subsection authorizes intelligence appropriations and amends misconduct policies. It contravenes Article II, Section 2 by dictating intelligence community management.
Section 8202(a)(2): PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 Reauthorization (Division G Coast Guard Provisions). This subparagraph modifies talent exchange programs. It violates Article II, Section 2 by restricting personnel exchanges in defense acquisition.
Section 8521: Prohibition and Notification on Investments Relating to Covered National Security Transactions (Division G Coast Guard Provisions). This section enhances supply chain resilience and amends maritime laws. It handicaps Article II, Section 2 powers by imposing investment prohibitions that affect national security policy.
Title XXXI, Section 3111: Organization and Codification of Provisions of Law Relating to Atomic Energy Defense Activities. This section codifies atomic energy defense laws. It impedes Article II, Section 2 by reorganizing energy defense activities, limiting presidential control over nuclear programs.
These provisions collectively represent an overreach by Congress into the Executive's domain, potentially violating the separation of powers under Article II. I urge immediate review and consideration of amendments to restore constitutional balance.
In closing, we draw upon the wisdom of President George Washington's Farewell Address, where he cautioned against the dangers of partisan divisions and entangling foreign alliances: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension... is itself a frightful despotism." He further warned, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." These timeless words remind us that excessive partisanship and foreign entanglements can undermine national unity and executive efficacy, much as these NDAA provisions risk doing today.
For 249 years the United States of America has repelled efforts by the international community to subvert its unique liberties; beginning with the 1856 Paris declaration; the 1907 Hague convention; the Vienna conventions of 1969; the 1977 Protocol for addendums to the Geneva Conventions, the 2024 UN Pact for the Future, and all additional attempts to date which have attempted to override our domestic sovereignty.
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES are not amenable to the cessation of absolute sovereignty on our 250th birthday as a nation.
Specifically, these, and many more attempts over the years, are ABSOLUTE violations of the following constitutional clauses:
● Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; Article I, Section 8, Clause 6; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and Article I, Section 8, Clause II. The latter two directly oppose the United Nations Code on the Law of the Seas [UNCLOS], as well as the United States Navy Charter.
● Article I, Section 9, Clause 6; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.
● Article I, Section 10, Clause 1; Article I, Section 9, Clause 10.
● Article 2, Section 2, Clause I; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3.
● Article 3, Section 2, Clause I; Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.
● Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1; Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2.
● Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3; Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
● Article 6, Clause 2.
Congressional Access to Classified Information and FY2026 Reporting Mandates
Members of Congress do not hold security clearances within the executive classification system and are not subject to executive-branch background investigations or adjudication. Their access to classified information arises from constitutional office and statute, and remains subject to the President’s exclusive authority to classify, control, and protect national security information. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President is the “sole organ of the nation in its external relations,” possessing plenary authority over foreign affairs and national security operations, including the protection of intelligence sources and methods. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). The Court has further held that authority to control access to national security information “flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).
Numerous Fiscal Year 2026 statutes—including the National Defense Authorization Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act, and multiple appropriations acts—impose mandatory reporting, advance notification, certification, and briefing requirements governing military force posture, intelligence activities, foreign assistance, sanctions implementation, and national security operations. While Congress may require information sufficient to perform its oversight and legislative functions, these FY2026 provisions, taken collectively, risk transforming access into operational control by conditioning executive action on congressional timelines, approvals, or continued reporting. To the extent such mandates compel the disclosure of sensitive operational details, restrict executive discretion before action, or delay execution pending legislative notice, they exceed Congress’s Article I oversight role and intrude upon the President’s Article II authority to command the Armed Forces, conduct foreign affairs, and faithfully execute the laws.
From the capability limitations presented by these bills to the imposition of international hearts and minds initiatives, as demonstrated in CRS-RL32492, and all addendum delays and corruptions imposed on the US chain of command structure, these actions can be considered imminent threats to our National Security.
The overreaching actions of the 119th Congress—evident in bills such as S. 1071, H.R. 7006, H.R. 5371, H.R. 5167, H.R. 6938, and H.R. 5962—have ignited profound concerns about potential foreign influence permeating our domestic legislative processes. This is no mere administrative oversight; it represents a grave threat to national sovereignty, democratic integrity, and the rule of law. If foreign entities are indeed steering U.S. policy through financial contributions or other means, it could undermine the very foundations of our republic, erode public trust in government institutions, and expose the nation to espionage, economic manipulation, or even strategic vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit. Such interference demands immediate scrutiny, as it risks compromising the independence of our elected officials and allowing external powers to shape laws that affect every American's security, economy, and civil liberties.
In light of these perils, we urgently call upon each state to initiate thorough investigations into the financial backers of their congressional representatives. These lawmakers have not only neglected their duty to transparently inform the American public about these egregious transgressions but have also deliberately manipulated bill formats—through acts of omission or commission—to obfuscate critical details. This obfuscation extends to Congressional Research Service (CRS) summaries, publicly available AI-generated overviews, and even the official texts posted on Congress.gov after enactment into law. By concealing the true scope and implications of these measures, they have effectively subverted the democratic process, making it exceedingly difficult for citizens, journalists, and oversight bodies to hold them accountable.
Furthermore, this consolidated legislation flagrantly violates cornerstone statutes, including the National Security Act of 1947, which mandates safeguards for intelligence and defense operations, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, which commits the U.S. to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technology. These breaches are not abstract legal technicalities; they could jeopardize global stability, invite international sanctions, or embolden rogue states to pursue prohibited activities, thereby heightening the risk of nuclear escalation or conflict that endangers millions of lives worldwide.
Compounding these issues is the alarming possibility that foreign funding directed toward congressional campaign coffers has directly influenced this legislation, amounting to a form of foreign incursion into U.S. governance. This would constitute a direct assault on our electoral system and national security, potentially qualifying as treasonous under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies. Additionally, the 119th Congress has flagrantly breached established legislative procedures and constitutional boundaries by embedding unauthorized foreign policy directives within these budgetary bills—measures that traditionally should focus solely on appropriations. Such mandates, now embedded in publicly accessible documents, are readily available for review by foreign governments, entities, and adversaries, providing them with invaluable insights into U.S. strategies, weaknesses, and internal divisions. This exposure could facilitate targeted cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, or diplomatic maneuvers that further weaken America's position on the global stage.
To ensure a comprehensive inquiry, any patterns or consistencies in bill sponsorship, amendments, or direct engagement by specific members should be explicitly documented and analyzed. This is imperative not only for accountability but to prevent future abuses that could irreparably damage our democracy. The stakes could not be higher: ignoring these red flags risks normalizing corruption, inviting further foreign meddling, and ultimately betraying the trust of the American people. We must act decisively to safeguard our nation's future.
In closing, we stand at a critical juncture where recent congressional actions—exemplified by H.R. 5962's burdensome foreign affairs oversight requirements, H.R. 7006's ideological restrictions and bureaucratic hurdles in appropriations (including prohibitions on certain aid, DEI eliminations, and multilateral funding conditions), H.R. 5371's rigid foreign aid earmarks amid partisan battles, and parallel intelligence provisions mandating inflexible notices and bans—reveal a pattern of legislative overreach that directly contravenes the timeless wisdom of President George Washington's Farewell Address.
Washington solemnly warned against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, declaring: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension... is itself a frightful despotism." He cautioned that this spirit "distracts the public councils and enfeebles the public administration," agitates the community with "ill-founded jealousies," and opens the door to foreign influence through party passions. These bills, forged in polarized battles and used to impose divisive mandates—whether through endless reporting, advance approvals delaying crisis responses, or ideological riders—exemplify this factional domination, eroding national unity, weakening executive efficacy, and fostering gridlock that hinders swift safeguarding of American interests.
Equally urgent is Washington's counsel on foreign policy: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" and to maintain "as little political connection as possible" beyond commerce, while cultivating "just and amicable feelings towards all" nations and avoiding "excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another." By entangling executive discretion in rigid congressional directives—on sanctions, assistance to allies like Ukraine, multilateral commitments, China-related transactions, or conditioned aid—these measures create precisely the "insidious wiles of foreign influence" and artificial ties Washington feared, compromising sovereignty, flexibility in diplomacy, and our ability to respond independently to threats.
The cumulative result is a weakened Union: slowed crisis response, deepened divisions, prolonged dependencies abroad, and diminished presidential authority to protect the nation. As Washington urged, "To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable." We must heed his guidance now—resist excessive partisanship and legislative micromanagement of foreign affairs, restore balanced executive leeway, and preserve the unity and independence that have sustained our republic.
In the spirit of Washington's farewell, we the people reject these encroachments and recommit to a government unified in purpose, vigilant against faction, and free from entangling political connections—so that America may navigate the world with strength, sovereignty, ;’/ and harmony for generations and futures to come.
Signed,
