I was very closely watching the saga of OMB’s disastrous effort to freeze funding for a vast number of federal programs, and wrote about why it was actually revoked at New York.
This week the Trump administration set off chaos nationwide when it temporarily “paused” all federal grants and loans pending a review of which programs comply with Donald Trump’s policy edicts. The order came down in an unexpected memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget on Monday.
Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge. Adding to the pervasive confusion, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately insisted on Wednesday that the funding freeze was still on because Trump’s executive orders on DEI and other prohibited policies remained in place. But there’s no way this actually gets implemented without someone, somewhere, identifying exactly what’s being frozen. So for the moment, it’s safe to say the funding freeze is off.
Why did Team Trump back off this particular initiative so quickly? It’s easy to say the administration was responding to D.C. district judge Loren AliKhan’s injunction halting the freeze. But then again, the administration (and particularly OMB director nominee Russell Vought) has been spoiling for a court fight over the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act that the proposed freeze so obviously violated. Surely something else was wrong with the freeze, aside from the incredible degree of chaos associated with its rollout, requiring multiple clarifications of which agencies and programs it affected (which may have been a feature rather than a bug to the initiative’s government-hating designers). According to the New York Times, the original OMB memo, despite its unprecedented nature and sweeping scope, wasn’t even vetted by senior White House officials like alleged policy overlord Stephen Miller.
Democrats have been quick to claim that they helped generate a public backlash to the funding freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded:
“A Monday night memo from the Office of Management and Budget ordering a freeze in federal grant and loan programs sent congressional Republicans scrambling and helped Democrats rally behind a clear anti-Trump message. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump as ‘lawless, destructive, cruel.’
“D.C. senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, warned that thousands of federal programs could be impacted, including veterans, law enforcement and firefighters, suicide hotlines, military aid to foreign allies, and more …
“During a Senate Democratic Caucus lunch on Tuesday, Schumer urged his colleagues to make the freeze “relatable” to their constituents back home, a clear play for the messaging upper hand. Schumer also plans on doing several local TV interviews today.”
In other words, the funding freeze looks like a clear misstep for an administration and a Republican Party that were walking very tall after the 47th president’s first week in office, giving Democrats a rare perceived “win.” More broadly, it suggests that once the real-life implications of Trump’s agenda (including his assaults on federal spending and the “deep state”) are understood, his public support is going to drop like Wile E. Coyote with an anvil in his paws. If that doesn’t bother Trump or his disruptive sidekick, Elon Musk, it could bother some of the GOP members of Congress expected to implement the legislative elements of the MAGA to-do list for 2025.
It’s far too early, however, to imagine that the chaos machine humming along at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will fall silent even for a moment. OMB could very well issue a new funding-freeze memo the minute the injunction stopping the original one expires next week. If that doesn’t happen, there could be new presidential executive orders (like the ones that suspended certain foreign-aid programs and energy subsidies) and, eventually, congressional legislation. Democrats and Trump-skeptical Republicans will need to stay on their toes to keep up with this administration’s schemes and its willingness to shatter norms.
It’s true, nonetheless, that the electorate that lifted Trump to the White House for the second time almost surely wasn’t voting to sharply cut, if not terminate, the host of popular federal programs that appeared to be under the gun when OMB issued its funding freeze memo. Sooner or later the malice and the fiscal math that led to this and other efforts to destroy big areas of domestic governance will become hard to deny and impossible to rescind.
I’m trying to keep my powder dry, but with the release of the swift boat ads, I’m beginning to think that it’s time MoveOn, or some other 527 make an ad attacking Bush’s VietNam service, starting with the line, “The Republicans spent XX$ producing a political ad attacking Kerry’s military record. Perhaps it’s time we looked at what George W. Bush was doing during the VietNam war…” then they could ask some tough questions about how many men he jumped ahead of to get into the TX natl guard, and how many men were sent to VietNam and died there so that the Shrub could sit on his backside swigging beers at the local cantina missing drills.
Frankly, I think it’s time to get dirty.
Don’t get too antsy, boys and girls. It is still a long way from August to November, and the days grow short in late October. There are two debates coming up. I see a real key here in framing the issues prior to those debates so as to set an agenda for them. I’m expecting at least one question to Kerry about the $87 billion vote, and another on the vote to authorize the Iraq fiasco. That will be when Kerry needs to have the right answers, but he’ll need to be consistent with what he says now. What he has to do now is set up the message to come from those debates and to establish low expectations for himself in those debates and higher expectations for George Bush.
Now if there were only a way to fix things so that someone would ask Bush about sovereignty…
Kerry and company need to stay ahead tho.. and not let Bush set the topic of the day by directing questions at Kerry.. they need to diffuse that nonsense and get Bush on the defensive some more..
Meanwhile, it seems Bush is really vulnerable on nat’l security. Unlike 2002, the more moves he takes, the more America realizes that a lot of time has gone by and yet not a lot has been accomplished. And because it all depends on framing the possibility of terror, which can be interpreted in any way even on the most clear days, there is near inertia in his numbers.
Of course, the sad spectacle of his CIA chief nominee being outspooked by Michael Moore: http://martinirepublic.com/item/cia-chief-nominee-outspooked-by-michael-moore …won’t help with prospective converts, either.