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Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge.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freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded: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.
Yes, Allan, character matters. That’s why it’s so galling to have this moral midget in the White House. This silly frat boy has not earned ONE thing on his own in his life. Oh, maybe his cheerleading slot, but I doubt that. He has had every string pulled for him to get him out of military service, to allow him to make money by running businesses into the ground, to gain the presidency by having his brother rig Florida and his Daddy’s buddies on the Supreme Court write him in on the most poorly reasoned SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. He lies. He cheats. He steals from the poor to give to the rich. He wraps himself in the flag and Jesus in order to further the interests of his corporate cronies. PATHETIC! People like you are duped. Even more PATHETIC!
Worst. President. Ever.
Allan, Nick is right. Even if Bush wins reelection he’s a self-limiting disease. Democrats will take over the White House and Congress again, and we’ll once again have budget surpluses and start to pay down the national debt instead of doubling it like the village idiot we have in office now. And once again we’ll have someone in office who isn’t so obsessed with a country that was no threat to anyone outside of the Middle East (and as long as Iran was there to soak up Hussein’s attention he wasn’t much of a threat there either) that he’ll abandon our true enemy right before catching him to go off on a wild goose chase.
Maybe we’ll have a president who listens to people who actually know what they’re talking about instead of just people who tell him what he wants to hear. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
Allan: The difference has always seemed to me that conservatives equate ‘character’ with sex; liberals equate it with ‘public character,’ for lack of a better term. Yeah Clinton lied about sex … but that was between him and Hillary, in my view. Bush lied about war, the most solemn and seriious responsibility a President has. Big difference. And as far as the polls go, survey 5-10 percent more Republicans, you get a Republican lead. Survey numbers more indicative of actual turnout — 4-8 percent more Dems in the last three Presidential elections — and you’ll get the Democrat in the lead.
Your making my argument for me Nick. What your saying is what all democrats were saying back then, character doasn’t matter. There are more things in life then money Nick. Clinton did next to nothing about terrorism even though all the signs we blaring back in his terms. Good debate though.
Hey Allan — But during Clinton’s time, you could comfort yourself with the knowledge of huge budget surpluses, a growing economy, no disastrous war and the fact Administration knew Al-Qaeda was the major threat…
Jim, at least we live in a country where we can have these kind of debates. Now you know how most Republicans felt for eight years when Bubba was in office. It doesn’t feel good does it? Oh and by the way, there’s a new NY Times/CBS poll out that shows Bush up nine.
Oh, the previous data was courtesy of mydd.com, who obtained it from theleftcoaster.com who got it from Gallup.
Get people to the polls, and President Kerry will happen.
Guess what that nasty Gallup poll shows:
“Kerry leads Bush by ten points among independents who are registered to vote, 51-41.”
Stunning.
I’ll take more bad news like that.
And I like my jazz rough.
Nearly 50% of PA voters say that Bush’s moral values are closely aligned with theirs. I think I’m gonna move to another state.
It’s so frustrating to read that people think W is tougher on terror than Kerry. As I recall…now, maybe I’m wrong…but I believe 9/11 occurred during the Bush administration.
Leadership? Well, if you consider lying to people to persuade them to be leadership, then I guess Bush is your man. Bush had led 1,000 Americans to their deaths.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I inhabit the same country (and state) with so many nitwits. How anyone…ANYONE…can vote for W is completely beyond me. Grrrrr!