Presidential Signing Statements
Browse 15 signing statements where presidents raised constitutional concerns about legislation they signed into law.
Showing 15 of 15 statements
Statement on Signing the CHIPS and Science Act
Re: CHIPS and Science Act of 2022
Biden signed the CHIPS Act to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing but noted concerns about certain reporting requirements and advisory committee structures that could intrude on executive branch prerogatives.
Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
Re: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
Biden signed the defense authorization bill but identified several provisions he considered to infringe on presidential authority, including restrictions on the withdrawal of troops from certain regions and mandatory sanctions provisions that could constrain diplomatic flexibility.
Statement on Signing the CARES Act
Re: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
Trump signed the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package but raised concerns about the provision establishing a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, stating he would not treat the reporting requirements as mandatory if they conflicted with presidential communications privileges.
Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
Re: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
Trump raised objections to provisions restricting the use of funds for military operations, requirements for reports to Congress on military activities, and limitations on the president's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
Statement on Signing the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015
Re: Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015
Obama raised concerns about a provision requiring certification of human trafficking compliance by trading partners, noting it could conflict with the president's authority to conduct foreign negotiations and manage diplomatic relationships.
Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Re: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Obama expressed serious reservations about provisions authorizing indefinite military detention of terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens apprehended on American soil. Stated his administration would not authorize indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and would apply the law consistent with constitutional protections.
Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Re: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Obama objected to legislative earmarks and provisions that encroached on executive authority, including restrictions on the use of funds that could limit diplomatic negotiations and requirements for executive branch communications with Congress.
Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Re: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Bush raised concerns about several provisions including those establishing an independent commission on wartime contracting, requirements for intelligence community reports to Congress, and provisions affecting the president's authority as commander in chief.
Statement on Signing the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
Re: USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
Bush signed the Patriot Act reauthorization but stated he could bypass requirements to inform Congress about how the FBI uses expanded surveillance powers if he determined that disclosure could 'impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive.'
Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006
Re: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (including McCain Detainee Treatment Act)
The most controversial signing statement of the Bush presidency. While signing the bill containing the McCain Amendment banning torture, Bush stated he would interpret the provision 'in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President' as commander in chief, widely interpreted as reserving the right to authorize harsh interrogation.
Statement on Signing the Line Item Veto Act
Re: Line Item Veto Act
Clinton welcomed the line item veto authority while noting it represented a historic shift in the balance between congressional and presidential power over spending. The Supreme Court later struck down the Act in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).
Statement on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Re: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Clinton signed RFRA enthusiastically but noted the law should not be interpreted to override compelling governmental interests in areas like civil rights enforcement. Raised no constitutional objections but offered interpretive guidance.
Statement on Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1991
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1991
Bush expressed concerns about provisions that could be interpreted to require quotas in hiring, and stated the administration's interpretation would ensure the law did not mandate preferential treatment. Also noted concerns about retroactive application of new rules.
Statement on Signing the Intelligence Authorization Act
Re: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988
Reagan objected to notification requirements for covert operations, asserting that the president's commander-in-chief and foreign affairs powers could not be constrained by congressional reporting mandates in time-sensitive situations.
Statement on Signing the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
Re: Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings)
Reagan raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Comptroller General's role in the automatic sequestration process under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, arguing it violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court later agreed in Bowsher v. Synar (1986).