The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Grants
This will, for the moment, avert what could have been a major legal battle over the spending power.
Yesterday, I wrote about the Trump Administration Office of Management and Budget memo ordering a "temporary" freeze of a wide range of federal grants, and how it was a major attempt to usurp Congress' power of the purse. Today, after widespread criticism, and a federal court ruling temporarily blocking the order, the White House has rescinded the OMB memo.
At least for the moment, this move averts a major constitutional confrontation over the spending power. It is also an indication that Trump can be forced to back down if he meets sufficiently strong resistance.
But, as noted in my previous post, this order was not the only way in which Trump is trying to infringe on congressional control over spending, even though it was the broadest and most sweeping. So the struggle over the spending power is likely to continue. The exact details of how and when remain to be seen.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't understand how these supposedly super genius professors and analysts and super computer clusters and multibillion dollar think tanks and institutions and nationstates collectively representing billions of people and trillions upon trillions of dollars in resources after years of hyperfocusing everything on Trump. Can't figure out that he is all about maneuvering for a deal and doesn't literally necessarily want or expect to do every single thing he announces on Twitter. Its even the title of one of his books. LMAO.
I think the idea is that presidents shouldn't try to break the law as a negotiating tactic, but the Constitution clearly states that Trump is exempt from history and tradition - and indeed, the law.
Like all those Dem politicians who constantly try to ram through blatant violations of the 1st and 2nd Amendment?
"Whatabout?"
Tu quoque, when used as a method of argument, is a logical fallacy. However, it is still a useful tool for exposing double (or more) standards.
In science, it's considered bad form to attack the arguer rather than address the argument.
In politics, you are lax in your duties if you don't immediately look for the real reasons behind every statement proffered in front of the cameras.
The whole crux of the discussion is what is and isn't acceptable negotiating techniques. If the Dems say Trump isn't allowed to threaten to do something unconstitutional yet they are simultaneously throwing much more blatantly unconstitutional measures against the wall on an industrial scale to see what makes it through and everybody accepts it. Well that seems to be a relevant point of discussion.
Yeah, it's a valid discussion. We can jump straight to the conclusion:
- When Republicans point out a Democrat violation of the law, the purpose is not to defend or uphold the law, and they are not angry. The purpose is claiming an equal or greater power for Republicans to violate the law, and they are gleeful about getting that power.
- When Republicans complain about double standards, they are really complaining about having standards at all.
- And vice versa, although you've got to go to other sites to see a real Dem mirror image of Amos or Publius.
- This mainly applies to supporters. At the top (Trump, Biden) they're content to justify themselves with a big FYTW. It's the Kool-Aid saturated supporters who feel the need to justify stuff with a basic error in moral arithmetic (2W = 1R) that decent people were taught not to use back around 1st grade.
This whole belief system is so lazy and stupid. It's like a child's view of the adult world.
And a retarded child at that.
Lazy and stupid are minor personal faults compared to aggressively dishonest and supportive of criminality.
The former pair can be tolerated, the second pair has to be dealt with eventually.
Except they don't. 1A and 2A are up for interpretation, and that interpretation has been legitimately debated for centuries. What is "blatant" under your interpretation might be reasonable under someone else's.
What Trump did was indisputably unconstitutional and a violation of the plain text of federal law.
Oh, bullshit, with a cherry on top. The 2nd amendment is only "up for interpretation" because people who hate what it means put forward tendentious 'interpretations' to get around it. It isn't genuinely any more 'up for interpretation' than the spending clause.
The National Firearms act was enacted as a tax law that just heavily taxed the articles in question, because they understood at the time that doing anything more would be unconstitutional. The only difference today is that gun controllers don't give a damn anymore if they violate the Constitution, or even recent Supreme court rulings.
Not because of anything having to do with the second amendment!
Federal agency aid spending disbursements. The bedrock simple solid principles upon which we base this Great Nation!
Freedom of Speech and the Right to Self Defense. A trivial bureaucratic issue the Founders meant to be hashed out and understood only and solely as a complicated morass of exceptions and nonplain roundabout double plus meanings with more holes and shades of gray then rotten swiss cheese.
The issue is not aid and dismemberment, it is about that only Congress has the power of the purse.
There's a word for threatening illegal actions as a negotiating tactic. It's called "extortion".
And there's another relevant word, here: "immunity".
1) Who do you think he's trying to make a deal with here?
2) He didn't "announce on Twitter." His administration issued an actual policy. On Twitter (or TruthSocial, or whatever) he was busy lying about having sent in the military to turn on water in California.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, David. You know that. The review is on-going, has not stopped, and there will be reductions: programs, people, or both. US AID headcount reduction was a case in point.
Non-responsive. Who do you think he was trying to make a deal with here?
Commenter_XY has made it pretty clear that he’s not interested in substantively responding on any of this.
Why spouting off a dumb slogan, having people point out that you’re obviously wrong, and slinking off with your tail between your legs is anyone’s idea of a good time is less clear to me, but de gustibus etc.
It's a mental illness. TDS. I used to think this was just a joke but some seem to be legitimately suffering from some form of mental illness.
Trump never fails, he only maneuvers for a deal.
And here we have a case in point.
So Trump tried to negotiate by:
1. Issuing a policy;
2. Getting sued;
3. Losing the first stage of the lawsuit;
4. Revoking the policy without getting anything in return.
The Art of the Deal, folks!
At the ground level people are acting like the basic policy is still there.
Since the way we operate federal contracts is that we spend state money upfront and then bill the feds quarterly or so to get it back, our current orders are to let employees keep working and turning in time cards if the contract is something generic that Trump might or might not want to continue. You know, the kind of technical and industry service stuff that commenters here decided shouldn't be done without even hearing what it is, but Trump might decide to like anyway on a case by case basis.
However, if the contract involves something Trump has directly targeted, agencies and our administration are giving diffferent instructions. The main example would be anything that sounds DEI-ish. There's already zero stuff labeled DEI or openly targeting particular groups, because of Texas law. But the fear is that stuff like science day camps for K-12 students might not get paid because even though the camps are open to anyone - the original proposals mentioned that we're in an area that's mostly Hispanic and even the mention could get it classified as DEI.
"At the ground level people are acting like the basic policy is still there."
True, and it's causing chaos in state governments to be sure. How do legislatures go about the business of budgeting when serious amounts of federal funding may or may not appear? It's all well and good to say that the states should stand on their own two feet, and I often agree with that sentiment. The haphazardness of the current process is terrible.
The comparison: Trump wants to avoid spending money that Congress authorized. Biden went all out in spending hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress DIDN'T authorize. Which is the existential threat?
What did Biden spend those hundreds of billion dollars on?
Forgiving legitimate debts to the government. Which is as much an expenditure as anything else that costs you money.
Yes it is.
Another example of an expenditure: paying out money for eight months to fake employees who have been told not to come to the office and not to do any work. Or to use language parallel to yours, "forgiving legitimate work obligations to the government".
And just to be clear, both actions are illegitimate and for the same reason, and many people even without an engineering degree know enough math to understand two wrongs don't make a right. Don't judge how many of us there are by the third-party vote. Judge by the approval ratings.
The loan forgiveness had a reasonable basis in federal law and has been used before. SCOTUS disagreed but that does not make the effort unconstitutional.
"SCOTUS disagreed but that does not make the effort unconstitutional."
I mean, it kinda does...
Actually I think SCOTUS struck down the loan forgiveness based on federal law, not the constitution.
He's most likely talking about not collecting on student loans. And if so, he's correct about it being unauthorized, illegal, and a massive power grab.
Unfortunately, his point is not that unauthorized illegal power grabs are bad.
I don’t know if either action is ‘existential’ but they’re both blatantly unconstitutional power grabs.
Too late. Commentators are already declaring a constitutional crisis.
So Gaza will get their Condoms? Crisis Averted! or umm, "Prevented", I don't know, after the exploding Pagers would you trust your Dick to the US?
Now who is doing the genocide !!
Stop sniffing the white powder.
Wow, what a flagrant display of defiance of the law.
Karoline Leavitt
@PressSec
This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.
It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.
Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction.
The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.
Seems about right. Get slapped with a TRO, so claim to rescind the memo and declare bigly victory.
I wonder how this shell game will go over with the courts:
“ “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media platform X.”
Here's the e-mail we're getting internally (state university that does federal contract research):
"As you may have heard, today the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has rescinded M-25-13, the OMB memo from Jan 27th that had required a temporary pause on all activities related to certain federal funds disbursements, including agency grants. Today’s OMB rescission does not affect any other memo or Presidential Executive Order.
Since the underlying Presidential executive orders have not been rescinded, we anticipate federal agencies will still be reviewing existing grants for compliance with other Executive Orders. Additionally, any previously announced agency communication pauses are still in place."