Trump reignites legal fight over freezing billions in federal funding
Aaron Schwartz/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is reigniting a legal fight over whether it can unilaterally freeze billions of dollars in funding in loans, grants and financial assistance.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice asked the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a decision by a federal judge in Rhode Island who determined that the Trump administration likely violated the Constitution when it tried to block trillions in federal funding through a now-rescinded directive of the Office of Management and Budget.
That Rhode Island judge on Monday issued an order finding that the Trump administration, in its effort to “root out fraud,” was still cutting off funding in defiance of the court order. DOJ lawyers are now arguing that the district court is overstepping its ability to rein in the power of the president.
“This appeal arises from an extraordinary and unprecedented assertion of power by a single district court judge to superintend and control the Executive Branch’s spending of federal funds, in clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers,” they wrote in an emergency application to the 1st Circuit.
DOJ attorneys argued the court’s decision effectively requires the federal government to get “preclearance” from the district court for any decision relating to funding.
“It is self-evidently unworkable for the defendant agencies to be required to seek targeted relief from the district court every time they wish to withhold funds based on their own authorities,” they said in the filing.
Lawyers representing the 23 state attorneys general are aggressively pushing back on the appeal, arguing that allowing the funding freeze will irreparably harm millions of people who rely on federal money.
“This case challenges defendants’ implementation of a policy imposing across-the-board blanket freezes on payments to all recipients of federal funding associated with nearly all federal programs across the Nation, ranging from (for example) healthcare funding to education funding to critical energy and infrastructure grants — a policy that had severe and destabilizing consequences for Plaintiff States and their residents,” they said in the lawsuit.
The attorneys general also argued it is procedurally improper for the Trump administration to appeal a temporary restraining order, which generally can’t be stayed.
“If the Court were to issue an administrative stay, defendants would immediately be free to resume this sweeping and illegal policy, harming Plaintiff States and the many recipients of federal funding that reside within their jurisdictions,” they said.
The Trump administration is asking for an immediate administrative pause as well as a stay pending appeal by Friday.
(WASHINGTON) — Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle gave director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard more than a half-dozen chances to withdraw her past support of Edward Snowden, the prolific leaker of government secrets, in her confirmation hearing Thursday, but she didn’t take them.
Gabbard has in the past called the former NSA contractor a “brave” whistleblower who uncovered damning civil liberties violations by the intelligence community. As a lawmaker, she introduced legislation supporting a grant of clemency.
On Thursday, she has repeatedly refused to withdraw that characterization of him. And she repeatedly refused to call him a “traitor.”
“This is where the rubber hits the road,” Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet boomed inside the hearing room. “This is not a moment for social media, this is not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories … this is when you need to answer the questions of people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.”
“Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America This is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high,” he continued.
Instead, Gabbard repeated a canned response that his acts were illegal and that she disagreed with his methods.
“Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it,” she said.
But she added he “released information that exposed egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs.”
Bennet concluded with an impassioned call to vote her down.
“Can’t we do better than …. someone who can’t answer whether Snowden is a traitor five times?” … “I’m questioning her judgment.”
Republican Sen. James Lankford presented her with another opportunity to clarify her position: “Was Edward Snowden a traitor?”
Again, Gabbard equivocated.
She did back off her support of a pardon. In an exchange with GOP Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote on the panel, she said the role of DNI does not have a role in advocating for clemency actions.
“My responsibility would be to ensure the security of our nation’s secrets,” Gabbard said. “And would not take actions to advocate for any actions related to Snowden.”
And moments later, Republican Sen. Todd Young, a potential swing vote in the committee, asked Gabbard, “did [Snowden] betray the trust of the American people?”
“Edward Snowden broke the law,” she said, “and he released this information in a way that he should not have.”
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Mike Johnson was reelected House speaker on Friday, narrowly winning a showdown with his party’s right-flank after a last-minute assist from President-elect Donald Trump.
Johnson was handed the gavel after a dramatic vote that saw the Louisiana native on track to lose on the first ballot minutes before two Republican lawmakers approached the desk and changed their stance following what one called a “lively discussion” with Trump.
Speaking after the victory, Johnson pledged to implement Trump’s “American First” agenda.
“The American people have called on us to reject business as usual and throw out the status quo,” he said. “We must and we will heed their call.”
Johnson entered the U.S. Capitol on Friday morning facing more than a dozen undecided Republican members. He had spent the day before meeting with the possible detractors in his office, and expressed confidence he would be successful but brushed off the broader implications if he were to lose on the first try.
Moments before the roll call vote began, Johnson publicly released new commitments on spending and fiscal responsibility seemingly aimed at satisfying some of his skeptical colleagues, many of whom were angered over his handling of the government funding fight before Christmas.
The move appeared to bode well for Johnson as the vote kicked off and several previously undecided Republicans cast their vote for him.
But trouble began when some House Freedom Caucus members withheld their votes at first, not answering when their name was called.
Then came three Republican defections, effectively taking away Johnson’s narrow path to victory.
First, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted for House Majority Whip Tom Emmer. Then Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina voted for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Keith Self of Texas voted for Florida Rep. Byron Donalds.
The vote remained open for roughly two tension-filled hours.
Johnson was seen huddling on the floor with various members of GOP leadership during that time. He then exited the chamber, returning to seek out Norman and Self.
Johnson, Norman and Self huddled in the cloakroom just off the House floor.
They were joined by some other Republicans, including Reps. Andy Harris, Andrew Clyde, Andy Ogles, Andy Biggs and Virginia Foxx.
President-elect Trump waded into the mix, working the phones and speaking to Norman and Self during that huddle just off the House floor, ABC News reported.
Self later confirmed the call to reporters. When asked if Trump was angry, Self called it a “lively discussion.”
Johnson also said Trump was a “big factor” in Friday’s outcome, saying he was on the phone with the president-elect while votes were being counted and he was “humbled” by his support.
After speaking with Trump, Norman and Self walked back into the chamber at 2:30 p.m. and approached the clerks. They both changed their previous votes to support Johnson.
That gave Johnson the 218 necessary votes to be elected.
“The tellers agree in their tallies that the total number of votes cast is 434, of which the honorable Mike Johnson of the state of Louisiana has received 218,” House Clerk Kevin McCumber said as he announced the vote.
Republicans in the chamber broke out in a standing ovation.
Johnson was handed the gavel by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who spoke for nearly 20 minutes before giving the floor to Johnson.
Johnson began his remarks with a moment of silence for the victims of the track-ramming attack in New Orleans on New Year’s Day before thanking members and laying out his vision for a Republican-controlled House and Senate in the incoming Trump administration.
“I’m grateful for this election, for the confidence this chamber has placed in me. It is the great honor of my life to serve this body with all of you,” Johnson said as he addressed the room before swearing in members of the new 119th Congress.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Jay O’Brien, Lauren Peller, John Parkinson and Arthur Jones contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump works at a breakneck speed to implement his second-term agenda , including wholesale firings and sweeping policy changes, he and his advisers assert his power over the executive branch is complete and can’t be questioned.
Still, his flurry of executive actions and orders spark a critical question: Does he have the power he claims to have?
Multiple court challenges are underway trying to stop his attempts to end birthright citizenship and temporarily freeze federal loans and grants.
More legal pushback will unfold amid Trump’s unprecedented purge of the executive workforce and reshaping of what Congress set up as independent agencies, the dismantling of which is largely being carried out by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Trump quickly fired 17 independent watchdogs and the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Longtime Democratic Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said Trump sent a letter removing her from the commission. His administration has directed all federal DEI staff be put on leave. The Justice Department fired more than a dozen of prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases. Millions of employees were offered buyouts, with tens of thousands of people accepting them.
His administration has touted the moves as long-overdue cutting of waste in favor of a merit-based system. His critics slam them as a radical restructuring of the federal government aimed at consolidating presidential power — and placing loyalty to Trump over regulatory agency expertise designed to be insulated from political influence.
The ‘unitary executive theory’
Driving Trump’s strategy is a legal framework championed by conservatives, perhaps most notably by Trump’s newly-confirmed director of White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, an architect of Project 2025. (Democrats held an all-night protest of Vought’s nomination on the Senate floor Wednesday into Thursday, though his nomination was later approved by Republicans.)
The so-called “unitary executive theory” has various iterations but centers on the idea that the Constitution gives the president sole control over the executive branch of government.
Its advocates point to Article II, which reads in part: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
“I think that means he has the power to control subordinates throughout the executive branch, including in the independent agencies and how they exercise power. And as a corollary to that, he has the power to remove or fire subordinates in the executive branch,” said Steven Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor and former Reagan administration official who co-authored a book on the unitary executive theory.
Trump in 2019 said: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Setting up Supreme Court test cases?
Some of Trump’s firings, especially those that seem to fly in the face of statutory protections for civil service workers from being removed without cause, are likely to result in lawsuits that put that theory in front of the courts.
“I think they are setting up test cases, and this Supreme Court is very likely to expand the theory and overrule other cases that are in tension with it,” said David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University.
In 2020, the Supreme Court found a provision from Congress limiting the president’s authority to remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the Constitution — a departure from precedent. The Trump White House has pointed to that ruling as justification for some of its firings.
Trump pushing limits on executive authority
But some say Trump is leaning on the theory to go even further, blatantly trying to take over powers the Constitution gives to other branches of government, namely Congress, violating the separation of powers and the concept of checks and balances.
“This is where the debate is: at what point does the kind of power that Trump wants and the way he exercises his power cross over from a constitutional vision about presidential power to an a-constitutional vision,” said Bob Bauer, a law professor at New York University and former White House counsel under President Barack Obama.
“The unitary executive theory has a history that isn’t nearly, in my judgment, what is claimed for it and now put into effect by Trump and his allies,” Bauer added.
Trump has sought to sidestep Congress and take control of federal spending, trying to freeze money already appropriated by lawmakers. His OMB pick, Vought, told senators during his confirmation hearing that the Trump administration would seek to impound funds it believes are being misspent.
Even bolder, Trump’s pledging to dismantle entire agencies. Turmoil is roiling USAID as its being taken over by the State Department and its staff reduced from 14,000 people to fewer than 300 staff, sources said. Trump is expected to move soon on his proposal to cripple the Department of Education just short of eliminating it.
Many of this will play out in the courts in the months ahead. But experts said, in the meantime, harm will be immediate and possibly felt for years to come.
“He’s going to do an enormous amount of damage that the courts can’t in all cases readily remediate,” Bauer said. “By the time he’s finished emptying out some of these agencies and in some cases closing them, putting all that back together again is going to be very challenging.”
“It will take years to rebuild some of these institutions. So, Trump and his team will accomplish much of what they want before the courts can fully and effectively respond. He will have created new facts on the ground.”
