You said:

Is the executive branch required by law to actually disburse money that's been authorized and appropriated by Congress?

ChatGPT said:

It depends on the context, but generally, yes, the executive branch is legally required to disburse funds that have been appropriated by Congress—with some important nuances.

Here’s how it works:

Appropriations Power (Congress): Congress has the constitutional authority (Article I, Section 9) to appropriate funds from the U.S. Treasury. This means no money can be spent without Congress first passing a law authorizing the expenditure.

Duty to Disburse (Executive Branch): Once Congress appropriates funds, the executive branch (via agencies) is typically required to use the funds for the specified purpose. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifically limits the president’s ability to refuse to spend appropriated funds. Under this act:

The president cannot simply withhold or delay funds without notifying Congress.

Congress must approve any formal rescission (cancellation) of funds.

Exceptions: There are some limited situations where funds might not be disbursed, such as:

Technical reasons: If legal or procedural hurdles arise.

Rescission requests: If Congress agrees to cancel the appropriation.

Continuing resolutions: Temporary spending measures may affect the timing and amount of disbursement.

Expired appropriations: Some funds are time-limited and can expire if not spent in time.

Are you thinking about a specific situation (like historical examples), or do you want to explore the broader legal and constitutional framework?

You said:

What about the situation where the government is running a deficit and doesn't have the money?

ChatGPT said:

Ah, great question. When the government is running a deficit and doesn’t have enough money in the Treasury to meet all its obligations, the situation gets trickier, but the requirement to disburse funds still exists, with some practical limitations:

How Does the Government Spend During a Deficit?

Borrowing: The U.S. Treasury routinely borrows money by issuing Treasury securities (bonds, notes, bills) to cover the gap between revenues and expenditures. This is the standard way the government handles deficits, and it enables continued disbursement of funds even when the Treasury is low on cash.

Debt Ceiling Constraints: If the debt ceiling has been reached, the Treasury cannot borrow more money, even if funds have been appropriated. In this case:

The government may delay certain payments to avoid defaulting on its debt obligations.

Prioritization of payments becomes a potential strategy—although legally controversial—where essential services or debt interest might be paid first while other expenditures are delayed.

Government Shutdowns: If Congress fails to pass a budget or a continuing resolution to fund the government, agencies may be forced to suspend operations and delay disbursement for non-essential activities. However, mandatory spending (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt) generally continues.

What Happens if the Treasury Truly Runs Out of Cash?

If the Treasury were unable to raise funds and exhausted all cash reserves, the government would enter default:

Payments for obligations could be delayed or missed, even for authorized and appropriated expenditures.

This is considered a catastrophic scenario, leading to severe economic consequences, including damage to the U.S. credit rating.

Legal vs. Practical Requirement

Legally, the executive branch is required to disburse funds as directed by Congress.

Practically, if there is no cash and borrowing is not possible (due to the debt ceiling or other factors), the Treasury must manage the crisis by delaying or prioritizing payments—despite the legal obligation to pay.

In short, deficit spending is usually managed through borrowing, but the combination of a deficit and a debt ceiling crisis can complicate or temporarily halt disbursement. Want to dive into debt prioritization or examples of how this has played out historically?

You said:

In this context, what is the difference between authorization and appropriation?

ChatGPT said:

Great question! In the federal budget process, authorization and appropriation are two distinct steps, each with a specific purpose and legal meaning. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Authorization – Permission to Create or Continue a Program

What it does:

Establishes or defines a federal program or agency and specifies what it is allowed to do.

Sets maximum funding limits for the program (but doesn’t guarantee the money).

Key outcome: It’s a policy decision, outlining what Congress wants the government to do. The actual funding still requires another step—appropriation.

Example:

Congress authorizes a program to improve public transportation with a maximum funding cap of $1 billion per year.

Authorization bills often last for multiple years but need periodic renewal.

2. Appropriation – Actual Funding for the Program

What it does:

Provides the legal authority for the Treasury to spend money for the specific purpose outlined in the authorization.

Determines the exact amount of funding for a program, which may be less than or equal to the authorized amount.

Key outcome: This is the crucial step that puts money into the hands of agencies. No federal funds can be spent without an appropriation.

Example:

After authorizing $1 billion for public transportation, Congress may appropriate only $500 million for that year. The agency can spend only that $500 million.

Key Differences

Authorization

Appropriation

Defines or creates a program

Provides the actual money

Sets policy and funding limits

Specifies the exact dollar amount for spending

Can be multi-year

Usually for one fiscal year

Doesn’t permit spending on its own

Required for legal spending

Analogy:

Think of authorization as the blueprint for building a house and appropriation as the bank approving your loan. The blueprint gives you permission to build, but you can’t start construction until you have the cash in hand.

Let me know if you want real-world examples of how these processes affect specific programs!

You said:

What would happen if Congress appropriated money it had not previously authorized?

ChatGPT said:

If Congress appropriates money that has not been previously authorized, a few interesting scenarios could unfold. Let’s break it down.

1. Legally Allowed (in Certain Cases)

Appropriations can technically occur without authorization, especially for programs where an authorization has expired but Congress still wants to provide funding. This is known as "unauthorized appropriations."

Annual appropriations bills often fund certain programs that lack current authorization. For example, the State Department and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have occasionally received appropriations despite expired authorizations.

Why? Congress may prioritize funding to avoid disruptions in government services or critical programs, even if the program isn’t formally reauthorized.

2. Violation of House or Senate Rules (but Not Federal Law)

Both the House and Senate have rules against appropriating money for programs that haven’t been authorized. However, these rules are internal congressional rules, not federal law.

Congress can waive or ignore these rules at its discretion—this happens frequently, especially in areas like defense, health, or foreign aid.

Example: Congress might fund an emergency relief program without prior authorization to address an unexpected crisis.

3. Increased Risk of Mismanagement

Without an authorization process, there’s a higher chance that appropriations:

Lack clear objectives or legal guidance.

Create confusion in agencies on how the money should be spent.

Raise concerns about oversight and accountability.

Example: If Congress appropriates money for a program that doesn’t legally exist (because it was never authorized), the agency might struggle to determine how to implement it.

4. Possible Legal Challenges

If a program is funded without prior authorization and involves significant legal or constitutional questions, there could be a court challenge. For example:

If an appropriation conflicts with existing law.

If it funds activities that require specific statutory authorization (like military action).

However, courts are generally reluctant to intervene in appropriations decisions, viewing them as a political question for Congress and the executive branch.

Summary:

Not illegal, but potentially problematic in terms of oversight and accountability.

Congress can and does appropriate money for unauthorized programs when it deems it necessary.

It may raise political or practical issues, but federal agencies are generally required to spend the funds once appropriated.

Want examples of controversial unauthorized appropriations or cases where this caused problems?

You said:

Where is the difference between authorization and appropriation created? In the law, the constitution, or in House and Senate rules?

ChatGPT said:

The distinction between authorization and appropriation originates from congressional practice and internal rules, not directly from the U.S. Constitution. However, the foundation for this distinction is rooted in constitutional principles and has evolved through statutory law and House and Senate rules over time. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Constitutional Basis

The U.S. Constitution provides the broad framework for Congress’s power over federal spending, but it doesn’t explicitly differentiate between authorization and appropriation. The key constitutional provisions are:

Article I, Section 8: Grants Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes" and to "provide for the common defense and general welfare."

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (Appropriations Clause):

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

This clause is the foundation for the appropriation requirement, ensuring Congress controls federal spending.

However: The Constitution does not say that every appropriation must be preceded by a separate authorization law. That’s where congressional rules and practices come into play.

2. Congressional Rules (House and Senate)

The House and Senate have internal rules that establish and maintain the separation between authorization and appropriation processes.

House Rule XXI and Senate Rule XVI prohibit appropriations for programs that haven’t been authorized. These rules are designed to ensure:

Policy clarity: Authorization provides policy direction.

Oversight: Prevents unchecked spending.

Budget discipline: Helps prioritize funding decisions.

These rules can be waived or ignored by Congress at any time, especially in situations where reauthorization lags behind actual funding needs.

3. Statutory Law

While the distinction itself isn’t defined by federal law, several statutes reinforce the idea that authorization and appropriation serve separate purposes:

Budget and Accounting Act of 1921: Established modern budgeting practices, requiring the president to submit an annual budget and Congress to manage appropriations.

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974: Reinforced Congress’s control over spending and created the modern budget resolution process.

Antideficiency Act: Prohibits agencies from spending or obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated, underscoring the critical role of appropriation.

Summary:

Constitutional Foundation: The Appropriations Clause ensures no federal funds are spent without congressional approval.

Congressional Rules: The authorization-appropriation distinction is primarily created and enforced through House and Senate rules, not the Constitution or federal law.

Statutory Law: Supports modern budgeting practices but doesn’t mandate the distinction.

Let me know if you want to dive deeper into the specific rules in the House or Senate!

You said:

What specific provisions of the constitution or federal law require the executive branch to actually spend all the money that has been appropriated?

ChatGPT said:

There is no specific provision in the U.S. Constitution or federal law that explicitly requires the executive branch to spend every dollar appropriated by Congress. However, several constitutional principles and federal laws work together to create a strong expectation that the executive branch will fully execute appropriated funds as directed by Congress, with limited exceptions.

Here’s the breakdown:

1. The Constitutional Foundation

The U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the "power of the purse," while the executive branch is tasked with executing the laws passed by Congress.

Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7):

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
This means the executive cannot spend more than Congress appropriates, but it doesn’t impose an affirmative duty to spend all funds.

Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3):

“[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
This clause requires the president and executive agencies to carry out the laws, including appropriations acts. Failing to spend appropriated funds may be considered a failure to execute the law.

2. Federal Statutes That Impose a Duty to Spend

While the Constitution provides the framework, federal laws clarify the obligation for the executive branch to spend appropriated funds.

A. Impoundment Control Act of 1974

This is the key federal law that restricts the president’s ability to withhold or delay spending.

Rescission: The president can propose canceling funds (rescission), but Congress must approve it within 45 days. If Congress does not approve, the funds must be spent.

Deferral: The president can temporarily delay spending for specific reasons (e.g., efficiency), but not for policy disagreements with Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act was passed to prevent abuses like those during the Nixon administration, where funds were withheld for political purposes.

B. The Antideficiency Act

This law prevents federal agencies from:

Spending more than the amount appropriated.

Refusing to spend appropriated funds when obligated by law to do so.

If agencies fail to disburse funds as required, they may violate the Antideficiency Act.

C. Program-Specific Statutes

Some programs, especially entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, have statutes that mandate full and timely disbursement. Failure to spend funds in these programs could lead to legal challenges.

3. Practical and Legal Enforcement

Even though there is no single constitutional clause or statute saying "every dollar must be spent," the combination of the following creates an enforceable expectation:

Congressional oversight and investigations

GAO audits and legal opinions

Court rulings (e.g., the 1983 City of New Haven v. United States case, where courts held that the executive cannot refuse to disburse appropriated funds for policy reasons).

Failing to spend appropriated funds without lawful justification can result in legal consequences, including lawsuits or violations of the Impoundment Control Act.

Summary:

Constitutional principles (Appropriations Clause and Take Care Clause) imply the duty to spend.

Federal laws, especially the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and Antideficiency Act, limit the executive’s ability to withhold or delay funds.

Program-specific statutes may explicitly mandate spending in some cases.

If you want, I can walk you through some historical examples where this became a big issue!

A network error occurred. Please check your connection and try again. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

You said:

What discretion does the President or the Attorney General have to decide which laws to enforce?

ChatGPT said:

The President and Attorney General have some discretion in deciding how to enforce laws, but that discretion is not absolute. It’s constrained by constitutional duties, federal statutes, and judicial precedent. Here’s how it works:

1. Constitutional Obligations

Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3):

“[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
This clause establishes a fundamental duty for the President to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It limits outright refusal to enforce federal law but allows some discretion in how and when to apply those laws.

Separation of Powers: The executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws, but Congress has the power to create laws and control funding for enforcement. This dynamic creates room for prioritization and discretion.

2. Enforcement Discretion in Practice

Discretion exists at various levels of law enforcement, from setting broad policy priorities to making decisions in individual cases. This discretion can be exercised in several ways:

A. Prosecutorial Discretion

Federal prosecutors (under the Attorney General’s authority) have broad discretion to decide whether and how to prosecute cases.

Examples of prosecutorial discretion:

Deciding not to prosecute minor offenses due to limited resources.

Declining to enforce laws in cases of conflicting legal priorities (e.g., focusing on organized crime rather than low-level offenses).

B. Agency Enforcement Prioritization

Federal agencies have discretion in how they allocate resources and enforce laws. Since no agency can enforce every law to its fullest extent, they set enforcement priorities.

Examples:

Immigration enforcement: Prioritizing deportation of individuals with serious criminal records over non-criminals.

Environmental enforcement: Targeting large industrial polluters while leaving minor violations to state regulators.

C. Policy Guidance and Executive Orders

The president can issue executive orders or policy guidance that shape enforcement, though these cannot contradict existing laws or create new laws.

Example: The Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was an exercise in enforcement discretion, prioritizing protection for certain undocumented immigrants.

3. Limits on Discretion

Despite having discretion, there are legal and constitutional limits:

A. No Power to Ignore Laws Entirely

The president and attorney general cannot refuse to enforce an entire law based on policy disagreements with Congress. This would violate the Take Care Clause and could lead to lawsuits or congressional action.

Example: If Congress enacts a tax law, the president cannot instruct the IRS to ignore it entirely. However, the IRS could prioritize enforcement on larger tax evaders over small ones.

B. Courts Can Step In

Courts have the power to check the executive’s discretion if it becomes arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional.

Example: In United States v. Cox (1965), the court held that prosecutorial discretion is broad but not unlimited.

C. The Nondelegation Doctrine and Statutory Limits

Congress can pass laws that reduce or limit discretion in certain areas, requiring enforcement of specific actions (e.g., mandatory sentencing laws).

4. Political and Practical Constraints

In addition to legal limits, political pressure, public opinion, and congressional oversight play important roles in how discretion is exercised. Failing to enforce key laws could lead to:

Congressional investigations or impeachment threats.

Public backlash or challenges from state governments.

Summary:

Discretion exists, but it is not unlimited.

The President and Attorney General can prioritize enforcement, but they cannot ignore or nullify federal laws entirely.

Legal, political, and constitutional checks help ensure discretion is exercised responsibly.

Want examples where presidential discretion crossed into controversy or court challenges?

You said:

What power do the courts have to prevent an Executive Order from being rescinded?

ChatGPT said:

Courts have limited power to prevent an Executive Order (EO) from being rescinded by a president, but there are specific circumstances where courts can step in and block or delay the rescission. This depends on the legal basis of the executive order and whether the rescission violates constitutional rights or federal law. Here’s how it works:

1. The President’s Authority over Executive Orders

Executive orders are actions taken by the president to direct federal agencies on how to implement laws or policies. The power to issue and rescind executive orders is generally considered part of the president’s executive authority, meaning:

The president has broad discretion to modify or revoke executive orders.

Subsequent presidents can also rescind prior executive orders at will.

However, courts can intervene if the rescission violates existing laws or constitutional protections.

2. When Courts Can Block or Delay Rescission

Courts may prevent or delay the rescission of an executive order in the following situations:

A. If the Executive Order Creates Legal Rights or Protections

If an executive order has created reliance-based legal rights or benefits, courts can block the rescission on constitutional or procedural grounds.

Example: DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020), the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind DACA because it failed to follow proper Administrative Procedure Act (APA) guidelines. The ruling did not say the president couldn’t end DACA, but that the process used was arbitrary and capricious.

B. Violation of Statutory Requirements

If rescinding an executive order would result in a violation of federal law, the courts can intervene.

Example: An executive order related to environmental regulations that contradicts a statutory requirement under the Clean Air Act could be subject to judicial review.

C. Constitutional Protections

If the rescission would violate constitutional rights (e.g., due process, equal protection), courts can stop it.

Example: An executive order providing specific protections to certain groups (e.g., workplace protections) might require the government to justify rescinding those protections without violating constitutional principles.

D. Procedural Failures (Administrative Procedure Act)

If the executive order involves an agency rule or policy subject to administrative law, rescission must follow proper procedures, including public notice and justification. Failing to do so can lead to court intervention.

3. When Courts Cannot Intervene

Courts are unlikely to prevent rescission if:

The executive order pertains solely to internal executive operations or foreign policy (e.g., military directives, diplomatic actions).

The rescission is part of the president’s discretionary authority without reliance-based interests or statutory conflicts.

Example: An executive order establishing a task force could be rescinded at any time without court review.

4. Summary

Courts cannot generally prevent a president from rescinding an executive order as long as it’s within their authority.

Courts can intervene if the rescission violates federal law, constitutional rights, or proper administrative procedures.

Notable cases like DACA show that courts may delay or block rescission if it affects established legal protections or fails to follow procedural rules.

If you're thinking of a specific executive order, I can walk you through whether it could be legally protected from rescission!

You said:

The example you just gave in your last answer, "2.B, Violation of Statutory Requirements", seems to be talking about implementing, not rescinding, an Executive Order that violates a statutory requirement under the Clean Air Act. The question is about rescinding Executive Orders, not issuing them.

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right to call that out! Thanks for pointing that out, and you’re spot on—the example in 2.B was more about issuing an executive order that violates a statute, rather than rescinding one. When it comes to rescinding an executive order, the legal dynamics are a bit different, so let me clarify:

Courts and Rescinding Executive Orders: The Correct Scope

When a rescission is at issue, the focus is not on whether the original executive order violates a statutory requirement but whether the act of rescinding it violates a statutory mandate or creates legal consequences that contradict established law.

Courts might intervene if:

The rescission conflicts with a statutory requirement that mandates specific government actions.

Example: If an executive order directs an agency to fulfill specific reporting requirements under the Clean Air Act, and rescinding that order would effectively prevent compliance with that law, courts could block the rescission.

The distinction is that the law—not the executive order—sets the legal obligation, and rescinding the order may cause a statutory violation.

Revised Example (Statutory Conflict upon Rescission)

Suppose an executive order mandates that all federal agencies assess and report on carbon emissions to comply with a statutory requirement under the Clean Air Act. If a new president rescinds that executive order, effectively stopping agencies from fulfilling the statutory reporting requirement, courts could step in.

Why? Not because the executive order created the requirement, but because its rescission leads to a violation of existing law.

Key Difference Between Issuing and Rescinding

Issuing an executive order can be challenged if it conflicts with a federal statute or the Constitution.

Rescinding an executive order can be challenged only if the rescission:

Violates statutory mandates or constitutional protections.

Disrupts legally protected reliance interests without proper procedural justification (e.g., DACA).

Let me know if you want specific court cases where rescission became the issue—it’s a fascinating area with lots of nuance!

You said:

Back to the issue of whether or not a president can withhold appropriated money. What about the situation where he believes the appropriation puts national security at risk?

ChatGPT said:

If a president believes that spending an appropriated sum of money would endanger national security, their ability to withhold or delay those funds is very limited under existing law. However, there are some exceptions and potential legal justifications the president might attempt to use. Here’s how it breaks down:

1. The General Rule: The President Must Spend Appropriated Funds

Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), the president cannot refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress unless:

Congress approves a rescission request (which rarely happens).

The withholding is a temporary deferral for legitimate policy reasons (but not to undermine the law).

The ICA was enacted precisely to prevent presidents from unilaterally blocking appropriated funds, after President Nixon withheld funds from programs he politically opposed.

2. National Security Exceptions & Workarounds

While the ICA limits the president’s ability to withhold appropriated funds, there are some ways a president might legally justify it:

A. Specific Statutory Authority (e.g., Foreign Aid)

Some appropriations bills include national security waiver provisions allowing the president to delay, redirect, or withhold funds.

Example: Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programs often contain provisions allowing the president to pause funding for national security reasons.

B. The Antideficiency Act

The Antideficiency Act generally prevents agencies from spending money that has not been appropriated, but it does not directly allow withholding appropriated funds.

However, in a national emergency, a president might attempt to claim that spending certain funds would violate other laws (e.g., laws against aiding adversaries).

C. Emergency Powers & National Security Directives

The National Emergencies Act allows the president to declare a national emergency, which can sometimes allow temporary redirection of funds.

Example: Trump’s 2019 national emergency declaration redirected military funds to border wall construction, arguing national security concerns.

However, such actions are often challenged in court, and Congress can overturn an emergency declaration with a joint resolution (though this requires a veto-proof majority).

D. Article II Commander-in-Chief Powers

If the president believes that spending money as appropriated would aid an enemy or harm national security, they might attempt to invoke Article II powers to override Congress.

However, courts have historically been skeptical of such claims unless they involve active wartime conditions.

3. Real-World Example: Ukraine Aid and the GAO Ruling

In 2019, the Trump administration withheld nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine, citing concerns about corruption and U.S. interests.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) later ruled that this violated the Impoundment Control Act, stating that:

“The law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”

This case illustrates that "national security concerns" are not a legally sufficient reason for withholding funds unless explicitly authorized by law.

4. Can the Courts Stop the President?

Congress and the GAO can rule that withholding funds is illegal, but actually forcing the president to release the money is complicated.

Lawsuits may take months or years to resolve.

Courts might defer to the executive branch on military or national security matters, but they are unlikely to uphold a blanket refusal to spend appropriated funds.

5. Summary:

General rule: The president must spend appropriated money, even if they think it threatens national security.

Possible exceptions:

Statutory waivers in appropriations bills (common in foreign aid).

National emergencies (but subject to legal challenge).

Military/national defense reasons (but this is a weak argument unless in wartime).

Recent precedent (Ukraine aid case) suggests courts and Congress will reject a president's attempt to withhold money for policy reasons.

Would you like a deeper dive into a particular historical case where this happened?

You said:

What if the president has uncovered evidence that the appropriation would fund a fraudulent program? Or that a particular program is rife with fraud?

ChatGPT said:

If the president or an executive agency discovers evidence of fraud in a program that is funded by a congressional appropriation, the president cannot unilaterally withhold or cancel the funds without following established legal processes. However, there are legal tools available to delay, investigate, or redirect the funds within certain limits. Here’s how that works:

1. The President Cannot Unilaterally Cancel the Funds

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) does not allow the president to withhold funds permanently, even if fraud is suspected. The president must notify Congress and seek their approval for any rescission (permanent cancellation) of the funds.

Without approval from Congress, the executive branch is legally required to spend the money as appropriated.

2. Available Legal Options for Addressing Fraud

The president or relevant agencies can take legitimate steps to delay or redirect funds if fraud is discovered:

A. Temporary Deferrals under the Impoundment Control Act

The president can request a temporary deferral of funds if necessary to address fraud, mismanagement, or to ensure efficiency.

Deferrals cannot be used to completely stop spending, but they can buy time to investigate and implement corrective measures.

B. Program Audits and Investigations

Federal agencies can pause or slow down the distribution of funds by initiating audits, investigations, or enhanced oversight procedures through the:

Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the relevant agency.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) for independent audits.

Example: If fraud is detected in a grant program, the relevant agency might temporarily suspend disbursement while investigating.

C. Suspension and Debarment

Agencies have authority to suspend or debar contractors, vendors, or grantees suspected of fraud. This can prevent funds from being distributed to bad actors while preserving the legality of the underlying appropriation.

Statutory Basis: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides guidance for suspending federal funds to fraudulent entities.

Example: The Department of Justice (DOJ) or Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can suspend payments to providers found to be defrauding Medicaid.

D. Referring the Fraud for Criminal Investigation

If fraud is found, the matter can be referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal investigation and prosecution. However, this does not immediately stop the funding, and the program continues unless Congress intervenes.

3. What About Legislative Fixes?

The best long-term solution for addressing fraud in an appropriated program is to work with Congress to:

Amend the law to impose stricter controls on how funds are spent.

Rescind or reappropriate funds with additional safeguards.

4. Real-World Examples

Hurricane Relief Fraud (2006): After the discovery of fraud in FEMA’s post-Katrina relief programs, the agency temporarily halted disbursements, but Congress ultimately needed to adjust future appropriations to implement stronger controls.

COVID-19 Relief Fraud (2020–2021): Billions in fraudulent claims were uncovered in programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The executive branch initiated audits and investigations but could not simply stop the programs without congressional action.

5. Summary:

The president cannot unilaterally withhold or cancel funds, even if fraud is found.

Temporary deferrals, audits, and investigations are legal tools to pause or slow disbursement.

Permanent solutions require congressional approval (rescission) or new legislation.

If you want, I can provide more detail on the Impoundment Control Act’s deferral process or specific legal mechanisms for fraud investigations.

It was 2000 and George W. Bush had just selected Dick Cheney to be his VP.  I heard a commentator say how it was a great pick for Bush, as Cheney added "gravitas" to the ticket.  I had never heard that word before, but its meaning was clear from the context and from my rudimentary exposure to Latin, and I thought "what a great word to use for the situation."  Apparently others thought so too, as there was an explosion of commentators using the same word to describe Bush's choice.  It was absolutely comical.  But the part of my brain that is made of tin foil began to tingle.  Still, the more mainstream part of my brain chalked it up to other commentators admiring the use of the word, too, and thinking they could look smarter if they used it in their own commentary.  A kind of homage to the original heavy hitter commentator (I don't remember who it was), or a minor plagiarism that could never be proven.  But it ruined the word for me.

Over the years, that same tin foil part of my brain would be activated repeatedly, to the point where I could no longer just brush it off.  Something was definitely going on.  And then, last summer, it started to not just tingle, but to actually burn.  The occasion was before Biden's fateful debate with Trump.  If you will recall, before the debate, there was a deluge of left-leaning commentators, all using virtually identical language, trying to convince us of how Biden was "sharp as a tack."  You can easily find YouTube montages that go on for 10 minutes with commentators all using that exact phrase or variations of it, to describe Biden's mental acuity.

And then the debate happened.  I watched the debate, and I guess my expectations of Biden's performance were so low that I thought he actually did pretty well.  But instantly, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of those same left-leaning commentators turned on him and said how shockingly badly he had done.  So badly that the Democrats would probably have to replace him.  It was like Biden had been set up to fail, and a memo went out with the new party line, and they all got with the program.  The 2 minutes of hate was extended to weeks, until all the pieces of the plan fell into place.

I'm NOT saying there is some conspiracy about these wildfires.  The tin foil part of my brain is very quiet on this.  It's just that when I do see the same unusual phraseology being used by multiple news sources, or the same mistaken use of a word, my tin foil lobe tingles at least for a moment.

I remember the day Roe v. Wade was announced.  I'll admit that it's a strange thing for someone to remember when they were only 14 years old at the time.  But the reason I remember it is that my father was very upset about the ruling.  My family had dinner together almost every night and politics, economics, culture, and society were frequent topics of conversation.  My father was very animated, and I remember it well.  Being only 14 years old, I said something like "I don't see what the big deal is... I mean, don't you think that women should be able to say whether or not they want to have kids?"  He turned to me—he was sitting at the head of the table, and I was sitting to his right—and in a rather harsh tone, he said simply "You don't know what the hell you're talking about!"  I'll never forget it, because it was a tone he had never used with me before.  And he was right.  I really didn't know what the hell I was talking about.  But a few short years later I got the education I needed.

I started college in 1976, just 3½ years after Roe was decided.  To help earn my way through college I started working in the Admitting Office of a world-renowned hospital.  The main thrust of my job was to escort patients being admitted to the hospital to their rooms.  After about 2 years, when I was about 20 years old and a junior in college, I transferred into a job as a medical technician in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU).  This was when they would train you on the job.  In that job, I drew blood from hundreds of premature babies, and babies born with anything from minor birth defects to conjoined twins.  Babies born with their intestines, or their hearts, or their spines, or even their brains outside their bodies.  Babies born without most of their brains.  Babies born with heart defects, brain defects, limb defects, urinary tract defects, genital defects, Down's Syndrome, and all other manner of chromosomal abnormalities.  I held premature babies that would literally fit into the palm of my hand.  Death was common.  I remember going home to Thanksgiving Day dinner with my family after a shift on which three babies died.  The smallest baby I remember surviving was born weighing only 14 ounces.

There were three large rooms in the NICU with patients in them.  Two of the rooms held 10 babies, each in an "isolette," what are commonly called "incubators."  These two rooms held the critically ill babies.  They were all "babies," even though gestationally they were technically "fetuses."  More on that later.  The third room also held 10 patients.  We affectionately called this room "The Pasture."  It was where the more stable babies went when they had improved enough not to need the critical care provided in the other rooms but were not quite ready to go home.  They were there mostly to feed and grow.

One baby was with us in the NICU for 15 months.  I still remember her real name, but I will call her Takisha here.  For the first 12 months or so, Takisha was critically ill.  The staff spared no effort to resolve every medical issue that arose.  We grew to love her deeply and to celebrate every success and worry over every setback.  It seemed she always took two steps forward and one step back.  Sometimes three steps back.  Nevertheless, Takisha continued to slowly improve and eventually "graduated" to The Pasture.  I remember celebrating her first birthday, after which, her improvement seemed to accelerate.  She was getting ready to go home.  One Sunday I came into work, and I could immediately tell that something was very wrong.  The air was different.  There was no chatter or "Good mornings."  I had left the unit only 12 hours earlier, and everything was fine.  It wasn't long before someone told me that during the night, out of nowhere, Takisha had gone into cardiac arrest and could not be saved.  The effect on the staff was devastating.  Over forty years later, I'm getting choked up as I write this.

Literally on the same floor, down the hall and around the corner, was Labor and Delivery.  And next to that was the "Fertility Control Clinic."  A euphemism if ever there was one.  It was the abortion clinic.  It wasn't "fertility control" at all.  It was "birth control."  And not in the contraceptive sense of that term.  I realized the irony was that what we commonly refer to as "birth control" is really "fertility control" and what they referred to as "fertility control" was really "birth control."  Birth control in its most brutal form.  Both terms intentionally designed to distract from the truth of their purpose.

It also occurred to me that here we were, in the NICU, doing everything humanly possible to save these babies (fetuses, remember?), even when there was very little hope of success, and even at enormous financial and emotional cost.  At the same time, on the same hospital floor, not 100 paces away, they were killing babies who were gestationally older than many of the babies we were trying so desperately to save in the NICU.  I could not help but realize that the only difference between the babies being saved in the NICU and those being killed in the FCC, is that the mothers in the NICU wanted their babies, and those in the FCC didn't.  And I thought "Well, if that's how we decide who gets to live and who doesn't, that someone wants them, then that leads to a very dark place that I don't want to go."

And that realization was the education I needed to understand why my father was so upset about Roe v. Wade.  Now I knew what I was talking about. 

Over the years I've matured in that realization to understand that some of the mothers do, in fact, choose to abort their babies with great pain, sadness, and reluctance.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that they abort their baby to solve some problem.  They love their baby in the abstract, the baby they have conceived in their imagination.  But the baby they have conceived in their womb, the one who has some abnormality, the one who was created in difficult circumstances, the one who came at the "wrong" time, not so much.  At least not enough to choose to bring them to birth.

After graduation from college, I continued to work in the NICU for several more years and eventually moved to a new job as a Critical Care Technician in Cardiac Anesthesia, working closely with the anesthesiologist on open heart surgeries.  I saw many more deaths, and many more lives saved.  Both children and adults, but mostly adults.  I worked there until I finished a second bachelor's degree.  Eventually I left the hospital to pursue a career as a computer programmer.  After about 5 years working in other industries, I returned to the health care industry, applying computers to the practice of medicine and to medical research.  After 13 years, I returned to the same hospital where I had worked while in college, and I continued to work there for the next 27 years.  During that time, I earned my master's degree in medical informatics from Northwestern University.

Those experiences at the hospital had a profoundly formative effect on both my career, and the rest of my life.  I became unabashedly prolife.  My prolife outlook is not only cast in concrete but is also based on personal experience.  I did not come to it blithely.  It is not naive.  It is not without compassion, nor without a personal, concrete, real understanding of the difficulties people face in life.  It has come from both happy and traumatic experiences.  And what I am left with is this:  "Well, if that's how we decide who gets to live and who doesn't, that someone wants them, then that leads to a very dark place that I don't want to go."

Once we decided that there are problems that can only be solved by killing babies, we crossed a line where The Fatal Solution becomes an acceptable solution to a problem, if the problem is important enough to us.  War becomes easier.  Assassination becomes easier.   Suicide becomes easier.  Killing our masculinity or femininity, even symbolically killing our identities, to re-create ourselves in our preferred image becomes acceptable if we feel we cannot live as we were created.

I do not want to live in a world where a homeless person's life is considered expendable because they have no one who wants them, or where an old woman is pressured to take her own life because her children can't be burdened with her, or where a baby can be left to die after surviving an abortion because his mother doesn't want him, or where a disabled child is denied care because some doctor decides the child's life isn't worth living, or where an adult child can decide that his father's life should end because he has dementia.

In such a world, politicians will more easily decide that my son's life is expendable in a war.  They will decide that old people are too much of a burden on the Social Security system.  People will decide that death is a solution to more and more problems.

If killing a baby is ever an acceptable solution to a problem, then there can be no reason to say that destroying another person's life for political purposes is not acceptable, if the political purpose is important enough to us.

If we decide that killing a baby is ever a reasonable thing to do, then there is nothing we won't do if the problem to be solved is important enough to us.

I realize that what I have said here will offend many people.  But I must say it.  In his spiritual classic The Way, St. Josemaría writes "Listen to a man of God, an old campaigner, as he argues: 'So I won't yield an inch? And why should I, if I am convinced of the truth of my ideals? You, on the other hand, are very ready to compromise… Would you agree that two and two are three and a half? You wouldn't? Surely for friendship's sake you will yield in such a little thing?'  And why won't you? Simply because, for the first time, you feel convinced that you possess the truth, and you have come over to my way of thinking!" ³

One of the great temptations we all face is the temptation to do something we know is wrong so that good may come of it.  But giving in to that temptation always causes more harm than good, even if that harm is not readily visible, or easily identified.  The broken hearts suffered by women who have had abortions attest to this.  The good that the babies who were aborted could not grow up to do will never be known or quantified, but what is known is that they will never be able to do it.  By giving in to this temptation, we say that we know better than God.  Even if the baby being aborted was conceived in an evil way, deciding that it is better to kill the baby than to nurture her, is denying that God is capable of drawing good even out of evil, and that he has a plan for that baby that will make the world a better place and enrich the life of the mother, if only she will let God take charge and do the good he has in mind.

This essay would be incomplete if I failed to put this truth into the context of God's mercy and forgiveness.  We are all sinners.  And while I have never participated in abortion in any way, I have sinned greatly, sometimes in ways that are just as grievous as abortion.  But our heavenly father is eager to forgive.  He stands on the top of the hill, peering out to the horizon, anticipating the first sign of our return.  The instant he sees us coming, he runs to us to throw his arms around us and clothe us with his mercy, and restore us to his household. (cf. Luke 15:11-32)  We do not have to earn his mercy, or prove to him that we are worthy of it.  It is on permanent offer.  We only need to say "yes" to it, with sincere sorrow in our hearts.

Read and meditate on the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

In this essay, I am not expressing any opinion on the role of civil law with regard to abortion or any other "life issue," although I may address that in the future.  My opinions on that have changed over the years and will surprise some, but that's for another time.  Rather, I am only trying to accomplish three things:  1) to convey my thoughts about why abortion is always a moral evil that should be avoided by all people and in all circumstances; 2) to encourage those who do not agree with me to reconsider their position; and 3) to encourage all those who have had an abortion, or encouraged or assisted someone to have an abortion, to acknowledge the gravity of their failure and to seek the guaranteed mercy and forgiveness of God.

If anyone is offended by the things that I say in this essay, I do not apologize.  I have tried my best to be true to the maxim that "charity without truth is not charity, and truth without charity is not truth."  I apologize only to the extent that I have failed in that.  If you choose to terminate our friendship, I will mourn that loss and will always remain ready to resume it in the future.

¹  Evangelium Vitae.  Paragraph 12.  1995.  Pope St. John Paul II.  www.vatican.va.

²  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

³  The Way.  Number 395.  1934. Josemaría Escrivá.

⁴  Luke 15:11-32.

The Father Capodanno Guild is an excellent place to learn more about this amazing man. There is an excellent documentary on his life named Called and Chosen.

Servant of God Father Vincent R. Capodanno, LT, CHC, USNR

Young Vincent Robert Capodanno, Jr. was born 13 February 1929 in Staten Island, NY - the youngest of ten children born to Italian-American immigrants, Vincent Sr. (Gaeta) and Rachael Capodanno (Sorrento). He attended Public School 44, and went on to study for a year at Fordham University before entering the Maryknoll seminary in upstate New York in 1949. His first assignment as a Maryknoll priest was to Taiwan, and years later to Hong Kong. At that time, Father Vincent Capodanno petitioned his Maryknoll religious superior to serve as a military chaplain. Accepted into the Navy Chaplain Corps and commissioned an officer, Father Capodanno received orders to Vietnam. USN Lieutenant Father Capodanno arrived in Vietnam during Holy Week, 1966 and served among Marines. He participated in numerous combat operations, including Operation Montgomery, Mobile, Franklin, Fresno, Golden Fleece, and Rio Blanco. His seventh was Operation Swift. On September 4^th, he laid down his life shielding a wounded Marine from enemy fire. Having earned his third Purple Heart that day, Father Capodanno was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 2006, at a televised Memorial Day Mass at the National Shrine celebrated by then AMS Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, Father Capodanno was publicly declared Servant of God, the first step in the process for canonization.

Source: Archdiocese for the Military Services, U.S.A.

Medal of Honor Citation

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Chaplain of the 3d Battalion, in connection with operations against enemy forces. In response to reports that the 2d Platoon of M Company was in danger of being overrun by a massed enemy assaulting force, Lt. Capodanno left the relative safety of the company command post and ran through an open area raked with fire, directly to the beleaguered platoon. Disregarding the intense enemy small-arms, automatic-weapons, and mortar fire, he moved about the battlefield administering last rites to the dying and giving medical aid to the wounded. When an exploding mortar round inflicted painful multiple wounds to his arms and legs, and severed a portion of his right hand, he steadfastly refused all medical aid. Instead, he directed the corpsmen to help their wounded comrades and, with calm vigor, continued to move about the battlefield as he provided encouragement by voice and example to the valiant marines. Upon encountering a wounded corpsman in the direct line of fire of an enemy machine gunner positioned approximately 15 yards away, Lt. Capodanno rushed in a daring attempt to aid and assist the mortally wounded corpsman. At that instant, only inches from his goal, he was struck down by a burst of machine-gun fire. By his heroic conduct on the battlefield, and his inspiring example, Lt. Capodanno upheld the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life in the cause of freedom.

In my opinion, they would do well to learn from Mount Calvary.  But I think the folks running the Archdiocese are too stuck in their happy-clappy ways to think outside the box in any way that involves looking back at our heritage. Fortunately, Archbishop Lori is the exception to that. He has been a great supporter of the Latin Mass at St. Alphonsus, which has experienced even greater growth since the FSSP took over the parish, and they’re in an even worse neighborhood about a mile away from Mount Calvary. And their median age is probably around 18.

What’s the definition of insanity?  And how does it apply here?

As a computer programmer, I frequently had need of some test data.  I would often use the following text, which is almost verbatim what was announced in the test, with a small modification that would make me smile.

This is a test.  This is only a test.  This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.  The broadcasters of your area, in voluntary cooperation with federal, state, and local authorities, have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency.  If this had been an actual emergency, the attention signal you just heard would have been followed by official news, weather, and sports.

This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

The Three Big Lies™ are:

There is no God.

God doesn't love you.

You are God.

On the surface these three lies seem to be mutually exclusive. But on a deeper level, we see that they are like the three primary colors an artist mixes in various proportions to make the exact color he's looking for. A little bit of this lie, a whole lot of that one, and a smidgen of the third, all mixed together create a new lie of a particular "color," often just the right color we need to convince us that the evil to which we are attracted is really a good.

In the wake of this announcement, many Catholic commentators have rushed to condemn Archbishop Viganò for his obstinate refusal to submit to the pope's novel teachings and practices, and to the "spirit of Vatican II." Good and faithful Catholics are left wondering if maybe, just maybe, Archbishop Viganò really did finally go too far.

How is a good and faithful Catholic to judge the situation?

In evaluating the current situation, it is important to be clear about certain things. Specifically, we must have a clear understanding of 1) what constitutes schism, 2) what excommunication is and how it is imposed, and 3) what the limits of papal authority are.

For simplicity's sake, and because he is almost universally recognized as pope, I will refer to Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis, even as we discuss the various possibilities that may lead someone to conclude that he is not a legitimate pope.

Schism

Schism is defined in Paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." The same definition is given in Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law.

To be guilty of any crime, ecclesiastical or otherwise, all elements of the offense must be present. For the crime of schism, basic logic would require there to be a pope. Schism against a pope would not be possible, for example, during a long interregnum, unless the person committing the schism refused communion with the other members of the Catholic Church.

It is clear that Archbishop Viganò has, over a period of several years, repeatedly, consistently, and clearly asserted that he does not recognize Pope Francis to be a legitimate pope. Even after being notified of his trial for schism, he has forcefully and clearly repeated this assertion. So it would appear, on the surface at least, that the elements of schism are present.

There is no doubt that a Catholic must remain in communion with a true pope. Of course, during an interregnum there is no pope to remain in communion with. Historically, there have been several periods of time when there was no pope, even for extended periods measured in years. But even during such a period, Catholics must still remain in communion with each other, and as soon as a new pope is elected, we must remain in communion with him.

However, to be in schism, there must be no reasonable doubt about the identity of the true pope, and that anyone claiming to be pope is, in fact, pope. During the times of the antipopes, who was the valid pope was not clear, and there are canonized saints who supported antipopes, convinced of the legitimacy of their claim to the throne. Therefore, if a person has reasonable doubt about the validity of a particular man's claim to be pope, then that person cannot be held to be in schism. But what is absolute is that there must be an attitude of wanting to be in communion with the true pope, whoever he is—we cannot be pickers and choosers, based on whether or not we like the man or his policies. Failure to be in communion with a pope we recognize to be legitimately pope is the key to schism. We have no obligation to be in communion with a doubtful pope.

Whatever his reasons, and however convincing or unconvincing you or I may find those reasons to be, Archbishop Viganò does not believe Pope Francis to be a true pope. So the validity of his conviction of schism is, in my mind, doubtful. It is not in the scope of this article to assess the validity of Archbishop Viganò's reasoning. I do, however, note that he is obviously well educated in the relevant theology and canon law. He is also particularly knowledgeable about Vatican II's nature as a pastoral council that itself explictly rejected the idea of being a dogmatic or doctrinal council. Further, he is keenly aware of how the council has been implemented and illegitimately transformed in the minds of its implementers (including Pope Francis) into a dogmatic council, despite itself having rejected that very idea. He is also quite knowledgeable about how Pope Francis and the Vatican have handled other cases where bishops, archbishops, and even cardinals obstinately refuse to submit to the pope.

Excommunication

Excommunication is a penalty imposed by the Church for certain offenses. Its intent is to awaken a person's conscience to the gravity of the offense he has committed so that he may repent. It can either be imposed by a competent authority, or it can be automatically imposed by canon law for certain offenses. The latter, automatic, method is called latae sententiae, and is incurred by an individual simply by committing the specified offense, such as procuring an abortion or desecrating the Holy Eucharist, whether or not it is ever publicly known, declared, or acknowledged by Church authorities. It is important to understand that most latae sententiae excommunications are not publicly known, but they have the same juridical effect as an excommunication that is publicly known, or one imposed by ecclesiastical authority.

Excommunication for schism occurs latae sententiae, i.e., by the law itself. It is not imposed by any competent authority. It occurs as soon as the offense is committed. However, as in Viganò's case, it can be publicly declared to have occurred. But it is important to understand that Viganò's excommunication was not imposed on him as a result of his trial. Rather, having been found guilty of the crime of schism by a canonical process, the Vatican simply made public that in their judgement, Viganò had already excommunicated himself.

Only Archbishop Viganò himself and God know for sure whether or not Viganò committed the offense of schism. In fact, it is fair to say that really, only God knows for sure. The canonical process that found him guilty has no effect on whether or not he actually is guilty, just as in a murder trial a verdict of guilty has no effect on whether or not the defendent actually murdered someone. Nevertheless, the effect of the guilty verdict is imposed in both cases. Just as with a verdict of guilty, an innocent man may be put in prison, so with a verdict of guilty, an innocent archbishop may have the penalties of excommunication imposed on him. But it does not change his standing with God. If Archbishop Viganò did not actually commit the offense of schism, then he is simply an innocent man being erroneously punished. Because human justice is flawed and God's justice is perfect, an innocent man, or a man who sincerely believes himself to be innocent, and who is erroneously convicted, may continue to assert his innocence, even as he suffers the punishment imposed. This applies to Archbishop Viganò in this situation. Just because the Vatican has judged him to have excommunicated himself does not mean that he has actually done so, even though he suffers the consequences of a guilty verdict.

An innocent man convicted of schism is under no obligation to repent, or to plead guilty, or to acknowledge the validity of the verdict, or to seek to be reconciled with the Church. He has no need of reconciliation. He has committed no offense. For an innocent man to repent, or to plead guilty, or to say the guilty verdict was correct, would, in fact, be an offense against God, Who is Truth.

Papal Authority

The pope has universal and immediate jursidiction over the governance of the whole church. Therefore, he may authorize the consecration of new bishops, or deny permission for it. He may move bishops from one diocese to another. He may change canon law. He may constitute ecclesiastical tribunals. He may erect new dioceses and suppress existing ones. He may call ecumenical councils. He may teach, within limits, with an authority the other bishops do not individually possess. All of these actions, and more, are within his power and authority.

But papal authority is not absolute. It has limits. The pope, for example, cannot change what is objectively evil into something objectively good. He cannot impose unjust laws in a way that binds the Catholic conscience. He does not have the authority to suppress a truth of the faith. He cannot require the faithful to believe something that is not true. And he cannot require the faithful to believe anything that is not a matter of faith or morals.

And he does not have the power to declare schism where there is no schism. And it is not schism to point out the limits of papal authority.

It is not schism to contemplate and discuss, even publicly, whether a certain action of the pope falls within those limits.

It is not schism to illustrate how a current pope might be exceeding those limits, or how in exceeding those limits the pope may himself be preaching heresy or committing apostasy.

It is not schism to refuse to submit to a man who claims to be pope whom you reasonably and sincerely—even if erroneously—believe is not legitimately pope.

It is not schism to form firm and prudent opinions and convictions about these things, binding on your own conscience, provided you maintain the desire to remain in communion with any true pope.

Drawing Conclusions

It is true that no one can judge a pope who is acting within his authority. But we can judge whether or not a pope is acting within his authority.

And under normal circumstances it would be unwise and imprudent to refuse to submit to a man almost universally recognized to be a valid pope. But these are not normal circumstances and we are not automatons. We must use our reason and intellect. If, after careful, informed, prolonged, thorough, sincere, and prayerful reflection, and consultation with experts in theology and ecclesiology, an archbishop—or any such Catholic—forms the firm conviction that a certain man is not legitimately pope, for whatever reasons seem convincing to him, then it is not schism to refuse to submit to that man.

What should a well-formed archbishop who possesses deep knowledge of history, theology, and philosophy do under those circumstances, after coming to the well-considered conviction that a man claiming to be pope is not, in fact, pope? If the rest of the world believes a thing to be true that is not, should a man who is convinced that it is not true behave as though it were?

So we should all withhold judgement of Archbishop Viganò. We should pray not for his conversion, but rather, that he have the wisdom and courage to know the truth of the situation, and to embrace the truth, whatever it is. And that should also be our prayer for ourselves. Whether or not we choose to give credence to the archbishop's reasoning is a matter of prudence that each of us must decide. The fact of his conviction of schism should certainly be taken into account in our own decisions regarding the status of Pope Francis and the legitimacy of his actions as pope. But it should not blind us to the possibility that Archbishop Viganò is right.