Some of the executive orders called for federal agencies to stop distribution of certain funding — whether from Congress’ recent infrastructure act, or inflation reduction act, or from certain grants and contracts — until agencies could review them and ensure they match federal law and are free of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Several organizations filed lawsuits, saying some of the actions Trump called for violated the Constitution or overstepped presidential power, citing the separation of powers between branches of the government. Other organizations have said even if they wanted to follow the orders, some instructions were too vague or unclear to execute.
The OMB memo
On Monday, Jan. 27, Matthew J. Vaeth, acting director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget sent a two-page memo (M-25-13) to the heads of all executive departments and agencies, providing more detail, instructions and timelines for the required spending pauses ordered in several executive actions. And the timeline was fast: the spending halt was to begin at 5 p.m. Tuesday.
In some cases, the language in Vaeth’s memo didn’t exactly match the language of the executive orders, or had other terms causing further confusion. That led to a follow-up memo attempting to clarify, but that memo called the funding pause a “request” rather than an order, muddying the issue even further.
The court filings
A group of organizations that includes the National Council of Nonprofits was one of many that filed a legal complaint, in federal court in Washington D.C. They claimed that Vaeth’s memo “fails to explain the source of OMB’s purported legal authority to gut every grant program in the federal government …”
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order, but Judge Loren AliKhan instead issued an “administrative stay” until 5 p.m. Monday, only on the funding issue. She gave OMB until 5 p.m. Thursday to file a response to the request for a TRO, and gave the plaintiffs until 5 p.m. Friday to reply to OMB. She set a hearing for 11 a.m. Monday, just six hours before her stay is set to expire.
Wednesday’s developments
Just after noon Wednesday, Vaeth issued another memo, this one only two sentences long — “OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded. If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.”
Immediately there was debate about what this meant.
* Some people said it meant the federal spending pauses were canceled.
* Others said erasing the memo still left the underlying (more vague) call for spending pauses from the executive orders in place, just without as much guidance on how to accomplish them.
* Still others said it still didn’t matter, because the executive orders themselves were unconstitutional.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X that the new OMB memo was “not a rescission of the federal funding freeze” and that “The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
Attorneys pursuing a separate federal court challenge of the government spending pauses, on behalf of 22 states, reportedly showed Leavitt’s tweet to the judge as evidence that the threat was still immediate.
The New York Times reported Wednesday night that Rhode Island federal court judge James McConnell Jr., will go beyond the stay issued in the other case, and will issue the more weighty restraining order, meaning federal funds can keep flowing.
“I’m worried about the effect to the people that the states represent,” McConnell said, according to the Times, citing states’ claims of billions of dollars being jeopardized and states being locked out of crucial systems that provide reimbursements for Medicaid.
More legal proceedings on this topic are sure to follow.
About the Author
