Washington Just before the hearing, the Office of Management and Budget rescinded a contentious memo Wednesday, but a second federal judge seems poised to issue an order prohibiting the Trump administration from freezing money for grant and loan programs.
During the virtual hearing, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island chose not to provide a decision, stating that he first wanted the Democratic attorneys general who filed the lawsuit to offer suggestions for the wording of such an order. He then wants to know the extent of that potential injunction from the Justice Department attorney representing the Trump administration in the matter.
Based on a social media post by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, claimed that the state attorneys general had persuaded him that the Trump administration was likely to carry out the funding halt outlined in the now-revoked OMB memo in some manner.
According to McConnell, the president’s press secretary’s remarks haven’t altered that. Therefore, even though I’m unsure about the exact wording and its consequences, I lean toward granting the restraining order.
The second order preventing the Trump administration from enacting a spending halt on specific grant and loan programs would be a McConnell ruling.
On Tuesday, District Judge Loren L. Ali Khan ordered a temporary administrative stay that stopped the administration of President Donald Trump from initiating the spending freeze. She then scheduled a hearing for February 3 in that matter, which was brought by federally funded organizations.
Members of Congress from both parties, as well as organizations like Meals on Wheels and grantees that depend on funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs, were left perplexed and frustrated by the original memo, which was made public by the Office of Management and Budget on Monday night.
That memo was revoked by the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, but Leavitt’s subsequent remarks caused further misunderstandings before the hearing started.
Leavitt stated on social media that the government funding freeze was not revoked by OMB’s decision to revoke the letter.
According to Leavitt, it is only a revocation of the OMB directive. Why? to clear up any misunderstanding the court’s order may have caused.
She noted that the President’s Executive Orders regarding federal funds are still in full force and effect and would be strictly enforced.
In a separate written statement to reporters, Leavitt appeared to imply that the purpose of rescinding the OMB spending freeze letter was to circumvent Ali Khan’s directive.
OMB has revoked the memo in light of the injunction in order to clear up any misunderstandings regarding federal policy brought about by the court decision and the deceptive media coverage. In a statement, Leavitt wrote. All agencies and departments will strictly adhere to the President’s Executive Orders on funding reviews, which are still in full force and effect. The court case should be effectively resolved by this measure, freeing up government resources to concentrate on carrying out the President’s directives to limit federal expenditure. To stop the outrageous waste of federal funds, more executive action will be taken in the upcoming weeks and months.
Prior to Leavitt’s tweet and the hearing, Senate Appropriations Committee chairwoman and Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine praised OMB’s decision.
on a statement, Collins said, “I am happy that OMB is rescinding the memo imposing sweeping pauses in federal programs.” Although reviewing federal programs and policies is a common practice for new administrations, this memo went too far and caused needless worry and uncertainty.
Patty Murray, D-Wash., a leading member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that the Trump administration’s reversal was the correct move. Additionally, that was prior to Leavitt’s input.
“After tremendous pressure from all over the country, real people made a difference by speaking out,” Murray remarked, “this is a significant victory for the American people whose voices were heard.” Still, millions of people have experienced actual injury and disruption over the past 48 hours, which is still going on, as a result of the Trump administration’s mix of blatant incompetence, malicious intent, and intentional disdain for the law.
OMB’s choice to withdraw the memoWednesday came after the White House assured the public on Tuesday that the spending freeze would not affect direct food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.
Two different lawsuits were filed in federal district court to prevent the OMB directive from going into effect at 5 p.m. on Tuesday.
Judge Ali Khan of the Federal District Court temporarily halted the scheduled spending freeze until February 3 at 5 p.m. as a result of the case brought by the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and the National Council of Nonprofits.
Democrats from the states of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia filed the second lawsuit, which was heard on Wednesday evening.
