It seems like President Trump’s promise to pay the military regardless of the federal shutdown is still on. The Pentagon confirmed Friday that it has accepted an anonymous $130 million gift to help offset the costs and pay members of the military during the government shutdown, saying the funds were accepted under the department’s “general gift acceptance authority” and were conditioned to be used to offset service members’ salaries and benefits.
“The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of Service members’ salaries and benefits,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the department was “grateful for this donor’s assistance.” The White House, according to reporting, said the donor was a “friend” of President Trump who did not want public recognition.
Budget and ethics experts flagged the rarity and risks of the move. “That’s crazy,” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told AP, calling the arrangement akin to “treating the payment of our uniformed services as if someone’s picking up your bar tab.” The Washington Post also quoted Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress saying the transfer raises serious questions under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which limits spending without congressional appropriation.
The $130 million, while large, covers only a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s payroll. The department spends roughly $7.5 billion every two weeks on military salaries. Administration officials have simultaneously moved billions from other accounts to keep paychecks flowing. Still, experts say permitting private money to offset federal obligations could create problematic precedents for accountability, influence and transparency.
Pentagon policy requires ethics review before accepting large gifts, and officials said they followed those procedures. But critics pressed for more disclosure about the donor and the legal basis for accepting such a gift in the middle of a funding lapse. “It raises questions about who has leverage over public institutions when private dollars intervene,” one ethicist told reporters.
For now, troops will see their paychecks, but the episode deepens a debate about whether private philanthropy should be a backstop for core functions of government, and what it means for democratic accountability when money, not voted appropriations, fills the gaps.
Read more
about this topic
