Federal Spending Freeze Confusion: White House Backtracks, Judge Blocks Halt
In a chaotic turn of events, the White House has initiated and partially rescinded a directive to freeze government spending, prompting legal challenges.
Initial Freeze Order
On Monday, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo instructing federal agencies to immediately review "$3 trillion in federal grants and loans" to ensure alignment with President Trump's executive orders. The letter called for a temporary pause in payments for affected programs.
Clarification and Backtrack
Later, the White House clarified that the freeze would only apply to specific programs affected by Trump's orders, such as diversity and equity initiatives. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Head Start were exempted.
Confusion and Impact
Despite the clarification, reports emerged of state health officials being locked out of federal Medicaid reimbursement portals. Some Head Start programs laid off workers. Multiple organizations serving low-income families reported difficulties accessing funding.
Legal Challenge and Block
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the spending freeze from going into effect on Tuesday evening. The lawsuit argues that the White House's actions violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits presidents from unilaterally withholding funds.
Political and Legal Showdown
The chaotic sequence of events previews potential political and legal conflicts. President Trump has promised to cut the federal budget through "impoundment," a tactic challenged by Congress under the Impoundment Control Act.
Controversy
Critics argue that even the temporary pause on funding is unlawful. Michael Linden, a former OMB official, maintains that "it is not legal to pause funding for policy disagreements."