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Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge.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freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded: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.
Here’s a counterattack for you.
Your assertion that “Trump’s only realistic hope for reelection was to hold down turnout among the majority unhappy with his performance and then seek via legal and political chicanery to eke out an Electoral College win by the kind of small miracle he achieved in 2016 or by contesting the results.”
needs to include OR BY MANIPULATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
“A real majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect a president and vice president. Now, the – another peculiar part of this system or a part of the system that is unusual is that the states have the authority to allocate the electoral votes any way they see fit.”
Elections 2020: The Electoral College
FPC BRIEFING
THOMAS NEALE, SPECIALIST IN AMERICAN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2020, 10:00 A.M. EDT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
“The Constitution says that a college of electors votes for the president, and Article II of the Constitution gives states nearly unlimited power to decide how these electors are chosen.”
“Republican lawmakers have been steadfastly loyal to Trump throughout his tumultuous tenure. If Trump were to ask states to appoint electors instead of having an election, they certainly might follow his request, especially those states where the president enjoys wide popularity. ”
“In 24 of the 30 states with Republican legislatures, a majority of people approve of the president’s job performance, according to last month’s Gallup survey.”
“Those states control 224 electoral votes—enough to throw the election’s results into doubt.”
*From The Atlantic: How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election
The president can’t simply cancel the fall balloting, but his state-level allies could still deliver him a second term.
MARCH 29, 2020
Jeffrey Davis
Professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County rom:
So, everyone says that Biden won the electoral vote but that hasn’t been certified and because there is barely anything saying they can’t, Trump and the republicans (with the help of friendly states with republican governors) will appoint the electors that will vote to elect Trump, regardless of possible pledges because they can afford to pay the measly fines that result, and possibly take their secret ballots which are legal in many states (and maybe if they’re not, that can be fixed by legislation), on January 5 to be tallied at the full congressional session, and lo and behold, Trump gets at least, 271 electoral votes.
I think this strategy is obvious by the smug look on Pompeo’s face saying they are transitioning to a second term and McConnell calmly stating that “we will find out who was certified in each of these states and the electoral college will determine the winner and that person will be sworn in on January 20th. No reason for alarm.”
I’m alarmed. Is this just their usual bluster or should the dems strike first by using their strategy as it is probably our last chance to preserve democracy.
I hope I’m wrong.
P Cannon
Golden, CO