Why Dems aren't fighting Trump's "illegal" shutdown workarounds

Driving the news: The administration is planning to divert $8 billion in previously appropriated funds for military research and development to pay the troops after Oct. 15, according to Reuters and Politico.

• Trump said Saturday in a post on Truth Social: "I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th."
• The White House also plans to use tariff revenue to pay for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Axios reported last week.

State of play: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said at a press conference the administration has "every right to move the funds around, duly appropriated dollars from Congress to the Department of Defense."

• "If the Democrats want to go to court and challenge troops being paid, bring it," the House speaker added with a smirk.
• Democrats have been pressing Republicans for standalone votes on things like troop pay and WIC, but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) took a pass on calling Trump out at a Tuesday press conference.
• "In previous shutdowns, funding has always been identified to make sure that the women, infants and children program has been funded, and we expect that that should happen at this moment in time as well," he said.

What they're saying: House Democrats largely told Axios in interviews Tuesday night they disagree with Johnson's assessment that Trump's actions are legal.

• "Only Congress has the authority to appropriate money to a federal expenditure," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
• "It's not like a big fungible fund of money that Donald Trump can take from here and put over there," he added.
• "It's almost certainly illegal to move money around," said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.).

Yes, but: Progressive and moderate House Democrats alike also told Axios not to expect much pushback on Trump's plans.

• Himes said he expects litigation against Trump's moves — but that he doesn't "know who the plaintiffs will be" because "it is politically tricky."
• "This is what we would've wanted to do anyway. We would've voted for it if it came up [in Congress]," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), a progressive member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Trump's plans.
• Said Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio): "Yes it's chaotic and yes it's illegal, but ... you don't want to see anyone get hurt. Speaking personally, yes, they should find a way to pay folks."

Between the lines: Several House Democrats in battleground districts said privately that it would be a massive political headache for them if party members challenged the payments.

• "The legality is questionable, but politically I hope Democrats don't do it," said one lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid thoughts about the political dynamics around the shutdown.
• Said another vulnerable House Democrat: "I'd say that it's a good thing we're helping poor people who are facing food prices and it's good that we're paying the troops."
• "I don't see people raising the legality question," the second member said, predicting "somebody will, ultimately" but that they "can't imagine" it will be a congressional Democrat.

The bottom line: Unlike Trump's cuts to agencies like USAID and the Department of Education, Democrats see little of substance to quibble over despite disapproving of Trump's methods.

• "That's probably why we're not saying as much," Pocan acknowledged.
• Said Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.): "There's general agreement that people want to see active duty personnel paid, so I think it's less likely people use this as the example."
• "But there's no question that Trump is essentially lawless," he added. "So he'll trip the wire on things people do care about."