PoliticusUSA is ad-free thanks to the support of our readers. You can support our independent voice by becoming a subscriber.
The Trump administration claimed that there was no need for a restraining order because they rescinded the OMB funding freeze, but when the matter got to court, the judge used the statements of the White House Press Secretary against the administration.
The Defendants now claim that this matter is moot because it rescinded the OMB Directive. But the evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name-only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on.
Messaging from the White House and agencies proves the point. At 2:04 EST, less than an hour before the Court’s hearing on the States’ motion on Wednesday, the Defendants filed a Notice saying, “OMB elected to rescind that challenged Memorandum.
Yet about twenty minutes before the Defendants filed the Notice, the President’s Press Secretary sent a statement via the X platform that said: “The President’s [Executive Orders] EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.” ECF No. 44. ”
Trump’s Press Secretary gave away the game, because the Trump administration couldn’t admit that they were defeated, the court brought up the likely possibility that OMB rescinded the order but was still freezing funding.
The courts, in this case seem to be catching up to Trump.
The courts also are standing up and are not going to let the Constitution crumble and so that Trump can build an all-powerful presidency.
The court has spoken and isn’t buying the latest Trump con.
What do you think of the funding freeze block? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
The court shut down Trump’s funding freeze:
If Defendants engage in the “identif[ication] and review” of federal financial assistance programs, as identified in the OMB Directive, such exercise shall not affect a pause, freeze, impediment, block, cancellation, or termination of Defendants’ compliance with such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.
Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025. ECF No. 44.
