[airstrike]

He must simply _claim_ that the 3 requirements have been met according to his own interpretation of the facts on the ground. It doesn't mean that his interpretation must be correct; He has the discretion to provide the extension per the law.

If someone challenges his interpretation of the 3 requirements in court, then presumably he'd have to explain why he believed that to be the case[1], but he does not have to prove this certainty ex ante in order for the 90-day extension to be valid.

--------

[1]: IANAL but whether he can successfully prove it or not is also ultimately irrelevant given the SCOTUS recent interpretation of presidential power. If he's found "guilty" of making a bad interpretation of the certainty of the 3 requirements, what is really going to be his punishment? There's really nothing you can do against a sitting president with regards to the exercise of their executive power...

[nickthegreek]

He does not need to simply _claim_, he must certify. And one of those is:

“there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension."

This is a binary thing. No such legal agreement seems to exist. You also ignored the other parts of my comment about him missing the deadline in the law to apply the extension.

Johnson himself said they will enforce the law. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...

[airstrike]

"Certify" does not mean the same as prove with evidence. I don't think there's a specific threshold that has to be met there other than the parties agreeing it has been certified. It can even come down to as much as "trust me bro" from the president.

The definition of certify is literally "attest or confirm in a formal statement"

Besides, there's no process through which Congress would question or investigate whether the president really can or cannot certify whatever he claims about this matter.