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Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge.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freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded: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.
There’s nothing particularly exceptional in that statement, coming from a Democrat. And it’s hardly a seminal article or major address. Somebody is going to have to provide that, at some point, and do full justice to all the facts of the situation. There’s not a lot of of reliable stuff right now about:
(a.) What an off-the-rails nutcase the “American-educated” Saakashvili turned out to be.
(b.) Exactly how much persecution there has been of Russian minorities in Georgia by Georgians, or of Georgian minorities in the enclaves by Russian separatists.
(c.) How provocative (and impractical) Bush’s breakneck drive to put missile defense systems in Eastern Europe actually was.
(d.) How far Putin really intends to go to re-establish the Russian empire, and how many more heads of state and journalists he is willing to poison.
(e.) How much the Europeans will let themselves be blackmailed over oil.
(f.) Whether a European boycott of Russian oil (however unthinkable for Europe) would even hurt Russia.
(g.) etc., etc., etc.
For somebody of Nunn’s resume, “look before you leap” isn’t the sort of sage counsel that makes my eyes glaze with admiration. Not that I had much for Nunn anyway. I’m delighted the Obama people haven’t asked to look into his finances.
Nunn wasn’t around when Clinton finally decided to help Kossovo, and I don’t happen to know his position on that (it was the right thing to do, in my opinion, but it did help plant the seeds of the current crisis — especially when we recognized Kossovo’s independence much later).
I do know that he opposed the First Gulf War, and so I’ve never been sure that Nunn isn’t — not merely a walk softly type — but an actual appeaser. If it had been up to him, we wouldn’t just have Vladimir Putin sitting on a huge part of the world’s oil reserves, we’d have Saddam Hussein controlling those of Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe even Saudi Arabia.