He signed it, doesn’t necessarily means he has to spend it.
SC ruled long ago, he has to spend it.
I don’t think so. I believe it depends on the law and on whether there is any legal challenge to a failure to spend.
Trump is sworn to uphold the law and he has to spend according to the law as long as their is a congressional appropriation. So it really depends on how the individual laws are written.
But just having an appropriation does not mean he has to spend it.
They gave him $1.6 billion for the wall. If he can build a wall for $160 million, nothing says he has to spend the other $1.44 billion. But a legal challenge could come in the form of someone saying that the $160 billion wall was inadequate in some way and that the administration needed to spend more as authorized by congress. And a judge could agree and tell the admin to spend more.
That’s a bad example because Trump asked for a lot more than 1.6 billion.
Social Security is an area where the law is written that there is no flexibility. Recipients are entitled to the money and failure to pay would certainly result in a lawsuit.