Political speech, timestamped and in context

Jeff Merkley: “We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no president of any party at any time gets a line item veto.”

Featuring: Jeff Merkley, Democratic | U.S. Senate from Oregon

'The Constitution Is Not Optional': Jeff Merkley Blasts Trump's 'Line-Item Veto' Pocket Rescission

Published October 1, 2026

But imagine a different President with a different set of priorities. We 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 to being an authoritarian state. So as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let's come together and set this right. (07:52–08:00)

STATEMENT

Asserts the necessity to prevent any president from obtaining a line item veto.

This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.

See the main statements from Jeff Merkley in this video

“In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line item veto and the Supreme Court struck it down.”
Asserts that the Supreme Court struck down a line item veto law in 1996.01:20-01:29
“The independent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump called a pocket rescission is illegal.”
Asserts that the GAO declared Trump's pocket rescission strategy illegal.01:37-01:51
“Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a king, if you will, a line item veto through this fancy term pocket rescission, canceling nearly $5 billion in programs.”
Asserts that Trump used a pocket rescission to cancel nearly $5 billion in programs.04:50-05:03
“The President is exercising a line item veto, which is unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress.”
Asserts that the President's use of a line item veto is unconstitutional.00:09-00:19
“Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional.”
Asserts that the cancellation of certain programs' funding is illegal and unconstitutional.00:55-01:00
“The law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law.”
Asserts that rescissions require Congressional authorization to take effect.05:38-05:48
“We have tried to set it right before in the Appropriations Committee, I and others offered amendments to say, hey, make sure this is immune from being undone by rescission within 90 days.”
Asserts that amendments were proposed to protect a program from rescission within 90 days.08:17-08:30
“The chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution.”
Asserts that the chair of the Appropriations Committee believes the situation is unconstitutional.08:49-08:59