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Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge.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freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded: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.
Brantley-
I’m obviously not Ruy, nor a member of the staff here. But I’d point out that there was no 16 point jump. Several sources put the race at a 5% Bush lead. If that’s so, then if you run enough polls, you’ll find one with as large of a lead as Gallup shows for Bush, along with several that will show a virtual deadlock, such as Pew or Harris. Add to that varying methodologies for determining what are likely voters and you get an even better understanding of why polls give you different figures.
I’m skeptical that many people are attending to the CBS documents issue. As I browse, most undecided people seem to be reporting that they want to hear more about what will happen in the next 4 years.
Your detailed analysis of poll data is always interesting. What is your analysis of the large jump, 16%, in favor of Bush in the USA/CNN/Gallup poll released today? Could this be a sympathy response for Bush that has been created by fact that the CBS memos denigrating his Nat’l Guard service are proving to be fakes?
Brantley Johnson – Angry Democrat!
“The Star has been criticized for “overly academic weighting” which probably mean they give high weights to undereducated voters.”
Do you know who made those criticizms? The head of the MN GOP. Mysteriously, he made those criticisms On Sept. 10th, when the Strib was surveying Sept. 7th through Sept. 13th. Then the poll comes out on the 15th and it has no credibility.
Convenient. Add to that the fact that after posting a 9 point Kerry lead, the Stribs headline says “Bush Inching in on Kerry Lead.” What a bunch of saps.
Mason-Dixon were the only ones to have Norm Coleman leading in the final 2002 polls.
The Star has been criticized for “overly academic weighting” which probably mean they give high weights to undereducated voters.
MN is close. A 9 point Kerry lead seems a bit of a stretch.
Both of these polls used RVs. What of the Star Tribune poll that used LVs and came out with Kerry up by 9?