The US Constitution requires Congress to authorize money to be spent by the executive branch.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2025-01-26. True: the US Constitution requires congressional appropriation for executive spending; Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law'. Mostly true: the substance is right but the wording is slightly off (for example 'appropriate' rather than 'authorize'). Mixed: the Constitution partly supports the claim but with significant exceptions that it ignores. Mostly false: the requirement exists only in statute (for example the Antideficiency Act), not in the Constitution. False: there is no such requirement at all.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Congress' Power of the Purse Yale Law Journal (author: Kate Stith)
“The Executive may not raise or spend funds not appropriated by explicit legislative action, and Congress has a constitutional duty to limit the amount and duration of each grant of spending authority.”
-
E2 Congress' Power of the Purse Yale Law Journal (author: Kate Stith)
“The Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appro-”
-
E3 Congress' Power of the Purse Yale Law Journal (author: Kate Stith)
“However, all activity of the executive branch-all actions undertaken by and in the name of the United States government-must be authorized and paid for pursuant to the Constitution.”
-
E4 Congress' Power of the Purse Yale Law Journal (author: Kate Stith)
“The appropriations requirement mandates that government expenditure be authorized by legislative action.”
Reasoning
Kate Stith's Yale Law Journal article quotes the Constitution's Appropriations Clause: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appro[priations]" (E2). It also says the executive may not spend money that Congress has not appropriated by explicit legislative action (E1, E3, E4). That confirms the substance of the claim: the Constitution itself requires Congress to approve executive spending. The criteria treat "authorize" in place of "appropriate" as slightly off wording, since the Constitution's term is "appropriations made by law," so the verdict is mostly true rather than true.
Cite this claim
Marc Andreessen, “The US Constitution requires Congress to authorize money to be spent by the executive branch.” (said 26 January 2025). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_7603e7eaffb9, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_7603e7eaffb9
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Marc Andreessen
-
Mixed
“And the political donations in the Valley range from 90 to 99% to 1 side.”
Political donations in Silicon Valley go 90 to 99% to one party.
-
Mostly false
“And that’s one of the reasons why Trump won.”
Getting Amish voters to the polls was one of the reasons Trump won the 2024 election.
-
Mostly true
“So I’m a volunteer when helpful, but I’m not making the decisions, nor am I in a position to speak for the administration.”
-
Mostly true
“A president that doesn’t want to spend the money can’t not spend it.”
-
Mostly true
“I’m not speaking for DOGE, I’m not in charge of DOGE.”
Marc Andreessen does not speak for DOGE and is not in charge of DOGE.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.