Analysis · Floor speech · beta

Jeff Merkley

Democrat on Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act 2026-09-30

1188 words · 64 sentences · 89 clauses

Statement grade

Average 93 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 53%Reasoning 20%Procedure 9%Promise 6%Anecdote 6%Positioning 2%The ask 3%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Madam President, Claims · 14 wordswe have a challenge--a problem--and that is the President is exercising a line-item veto, Reasoning · 39 wordsand line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States. Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not optional. A President is not a King. Claims · 59 wordsThat was the Founders’ vision for our democratic Republic. But on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founders’ vision, at the Constitution. He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law.¹² Procedure · 4 wordsWell, let’s be clear.Procedure Claims · 27 wordsCanceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself, Reasoning · 85 wordsand unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President. This has been tested a few times. In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto, ³and the Supreme Court struck it down.⁴ It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal.⁵ Procedure · 12 wordsHere is what they said. I will quote it at some length.Procedure Claims · 27 wordsAnd that fiscal year--we are hours away from it ending. So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress’ job to design, authorize, and fund programs. Reasoning · 30 wordsIt is the Executive’s job--the President and his team’s job--to implement those programs. The assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that we have a government that serves the people. Claims · 232 wordsIn a democratic republic, the people’s representatives in Congress-- from every part of the country, from every walk of life--debate and negotiate and legislate so that you will have programs and spending decisions that reflect the needs of every part of the Nation. We don’t just deliver programs for red States when Republicans have the majority; we don’t just deliver programs for blue States when Democrats have the majority--no. All of us, working together, produce spending bills to serve people throughout this country--urban and rural, north and south, east and west, plains and coast. However you want to divide up the country, we serve everyone. So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional. But in an authoritarian, strongman state it is all different. The President alone decides what gets funded and can use that power to reward allies and punish opponents. In those states, there is no separation of powers; there is one authority. Call it a King. Call it a czar. Call it an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t fit in a democratic republic. We do not have a tyrant or a dictator. We do not have a King. We have a President with responsibilities under the Constitution to implement the programs that we design, authorize, and fund here in Congress. Reasoning · 32 wordsThat is how you get government by and for the people rather than by and for a billionaire or by and for an elite class or by and for a King himself. Claims · 85 wordsBut last year, Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a King in a, if you will, line-item veto through this fancy term ``pocket rescission,’’ canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law.⁶ That tool, called a rescission, was created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, ⁷and it allows the President to propose canceling a program, but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs, and we haven’t voted to cancel these programs. Reasoning · 11 wordsSo, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them. Procedure · 5 wordsWell, it is pretty straightforward.Procedure Claims · 18 wordsThe law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law. Madam President, Procedure · 45 wordsI have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: point here. She notes: ProcedureClaims · 31 wordsThen she goes on to cite the independent Government Accountability Office. So on both sides of the aisle, those of us who are defending the Constitution are coming together and saying: Promise · 30 wordsWe have to fix this, and we have to put an end to this end run of canceling programs with days to go and then claiming the clock has expired. Procedure · 5 wordsThis is essentially the situation.Procedure Anecdote · 75 wordsImagine Cinderella and she is in her carriage. The carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight. So in comes the President, and the President says: We are going to pause these programs--or Cinderella’s travel--and so we are going to hold her hostage for a few minutes until midnight so her carriage will turn into a pumpkin. And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program’s legal window to be implemented has expired.Anecdote Claims · 7 wordsThat is what is going on here, Positioning · 22 wordsand it is an ugly, ugly version of ``too clever by half,’’ as we say back home, to do a line-item veto.Positioning Reasoning · 46 wordsAnd my colleagues across the aisle, we will all be affected by this. The programs the President tried to cancel--his process of canceling-- may be programs that are favored by one side or the other, but imagine a different President with a different set of priorities. Promise · 41 wordsWe have to defend the institution. We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no President of any party, at any time, gets a line-item veto that corrupts us from being a democratic republic into being an authoritarian state. The ask · 22 wordsSo as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let’s come together and set this right. Procedure · 9 wordsAnd we have tried to set it right before.Procedure Claims · 112 wordsIn the Appropriations Committee, I and others offered amendments to say: Hey, make sure this is immune from being undone by a rescission within 90 days. Colleagues, you know, wanting to not embarrass a President, said, well, they are not going to support that; the Republican majority said they wouldn’t support that. But we heard assurances that they agreed with us, with the principle, that they weren’t going to let it happen, but here it is. Five days before the end of the fiscal year, it just happened, ⁸and the chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution. The ask · 18 wordsSo let’s all listen to her. Let’s all listen to the Constitution. So this situation must be remedied, Claims · 13 wordsand a number of my colleagues are here tonight to speak to it. Procedure · 32 wordsAnd I just want to pass this conversation on to the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee to emphasize how important it is that we address this and we address this tonight.Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Reasons givenThis statement drew 9 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 73

19 of 19 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Well, let’s be clear.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Here is what they said.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I will quote it at some length.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Well, it is pretty straightforward.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “as follows:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “point here.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “She notes:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “This is essentially the situation.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “Imagine Cinderella and she is in her carriage.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “The carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “So in comes the President,”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “and the President says:”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “We are going to pause these programs--or Cinderella’s travel--and so we are going to hold her hostage for a few minutes until midnight so her carriage will turn into a pumpkin.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program’s legal window to be implemented has expired.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and it is an ugly, ugly version of ``too clever by half,’’ as we say back home, to do a line-item veto.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “And we have tried to set it right before.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “And I just want to pass this conversation on to the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee to emphasize how important it is that we address this and we address this tonight.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · no score

Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.

Reasoning · 100

0 of 19 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

Nothing lost points.

Conclusions found · 9

Conclusion“and line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States.”

Because“and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President.”

“It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Reason given
Conclusion“Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself,”

Because“He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law.”

“and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President.”

Reason given
Conclusion“So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional.”

Because“So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress’ job to design, authorize,”

“It is the Executive’s job--the President and his team’s job--to implement those programs.”

“and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President.”

Reason given
Conclusion“So, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them.”

Because“but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs,”

“and we haven’t voted to cancel these programs.”

Reason given
Conclusion“We have to fix this,”

Because“Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself,”

“Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal.”

Reason given
Conclusion“and we have to put an end to this end run of canceling programs with days to go and then claiming the clock has expired.”

Because“And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program’s legal window to be implemented has expired.”

“That is what is going on here,”

Reason given
Conclusion“We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no President of any party, at any time, gets a line-item veto that corrupts us from being a democratic republic into being an authoritarian state.”

Because“but imagine a different President with a different set of priorities.”

“It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Reason given
Conclusion“So as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let’s come together and set this right.”

Because“Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself,”

“and the chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution.”

Reason given
Conclusion“So this situation must be remedied,”

Because“Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself,”

Reason given

Respect · 100

0 of 19 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

0 of 19 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 8

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law.”President Trump took action on the Friday before September 30, 2026 that Merkley characterized as an attack on the Constitution.search
2“canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law”On the Friday before this speech, President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought announced the cancellation of nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law.search
3“In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto”In 1996, Congress passed legislation giving the President a line-item veto.search
4“the Supreme Court struck it down”The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 line-item veto law as unconstitutional.search
5“Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed”On the day before this speech (around September 29, 2026), the Government Accountability Office issued a finding that the Trump administration’s pocket rescission strategy is illegal.search
6“canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law”Last year, President Trump used a pocket rescission to cancel nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law.search
7“created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act”The rescission tool was created under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.search
8“Five days before the end of the fiscal year, it just happened”The cancellation announced by the administration occurred five days before the end of the fiscal year.search

Analyzed on 2026-10-20