UPDATE (Jan. 31, 4:24 p.m. ET): A federal judge on Friday granted a request from 23 Democratic attorneys general to temporarily block the Trump administration’s spending freeze in their respective states and Washington, D.C., as litigation on the matter moves forward.
If Donald Trump and his White House team were trying to cause a massive national freak-out, they succeeded beautifully. In a Monday night memo, the acting director of the president’s budget office ordered a freeze to federal grants, loans and related assistance — money that Congress has already appropriated — effectively trying to transfer the power of the purse away from lawmakers.
As we’ve discussed, federal grants finance much of modern American life. If the money stops flowing because Team Trump says some of the disbursements might conflict with the Republican’s wishes, the effects are difficult to measure.
But there are also legal considerations to consider. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among the many Democrats condemning the White House’s gambit, issued a written statement that argued the administration’s policy “blatantly disobeys the law.” The New York Democrat added, “Congress approved these investments, and they are not optional; they are the law.”
The question was when, not whether, Trump’s new policy would face a legal challenge. The public did not have to wait too long for an answer.
In a morning news conference, Schumer told reporters that New York Attorney General Letitia James was “going to court” to contest the White House’s “illegal” move. The senator knew of what he spoke: The state’s Democratic attorney general has, in fact, already filed suit taking aim at the president’s legally dubious spending freeze.
She’s partnering in this case with Democratic attorneys general from 21 other states and the District of Columbia: Rob Bonta of California, Kwame Raoul of Illinois, Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts, Matt Platkin of New Jersey, Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, Kris Mayes of Arizona, Phil Weiser of Colorado, William Tong of Connecticut, Kathy Jennings of Delaware, Brian Schwalb of Washington, D.C., Anne Lopez of Hawaii, Aaron Frey of Maine, Anthony G. Brown of Maryland, Dana Nessel of Michigan, General Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Aaron Ford of Nevada, Jeff Jackson of North Carolina, Raúl Torrez of New Mexico, Dan Rayfield of Oregon, Charity Clark of Vermont, Nicholas W. Brown of Washington and Josh Kaul of Wisconsin.
This lawsuit is separate from a related case filed by a coalition of nonprofits and public health advocates, who collectively asked a federal judge for an emergency order to block the White House’s policy. That judge issued an administrative stay on Tuesday afternoon that pushed the start date of the federal funding freeze to Monday at 5 p.m. ET while litigation plays out.
While the cases are adjudicated, there remains widespread confusion — in government agencies and among grant beneficiaries — about the practical implications of the Trump administration’s new policy.
A senior administration official, for example, denied to NBC News that the White House had imposed a blanket freeze on spending and insisted that individual payments or assistance were not directly affected by Monday’s memo from the Office of Management and Budget.
And while that might’ve sounded reassuring, NBC News also reported on some of the preliminary consequences of Team Trump’s gambit.
Nonprofit organizations reached by NBC News said some of their funding appeared to have already been cut off, and they were scrambling to figure out what the implications could be for their programs, like those providing health care, housing and early childhood education.
There are related reports about state-based Medicaid portals’ shutting down as a result of the White House’s move, though administration officials are apparently working to address this.
As for the likely fate of the new cases, NBC News published a separate report noting that the issue could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court quickly.
Although the court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, legal experts say this could be one of several uphill legal battles the administration has picked. There are also Supreme Court precedents that have acknowledged restrictions on presidential power when it comes to how money is spent. In 1974, around the time the Impoundment Control Act was enacted, the court ruled against the Nixon administration in an attempt to withhold funding aimed at reducing water pollution.
Watch this space.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
