Jessyca Leach, the head of a health clinic in Phoenix that caters to thousands of underprivileged individuals, including many members from the LGBTQ+ community, greeted the news of unfrozen funds with a glimmer of hope. Caught in an unfortunate situation, she was previously compelled to make tough decisions such as laying off certain staff members and reducing the leadership team’s salaried compensation. Therefore, the latest resumption in funding, following the court’s directives, was seen as a potential silver lining.
However, the breathing room was fleeting. Alongside the federal funding, the clinic received an official notice from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ payment processing department. Citing ‘Executive Orders regarding potentially unallowable grant payments’, it was communicated that additional steps would be undertaken to process payments and these checks might result in delayed or even rejected payments.
Over the past week, several such notices have been sent out, underscoring the Trump administration’s dedication to streamline expenditures and revamp governmental operations. This determination holds even in the face of court orders objecting the President’s extensive executive actions.
Moreover, this issue is at the heart of another ongoing case put forth by a group of 23 state attorneys general. They proclaim that the government’s pausing of expenditure is essentially a non-compliance with court rulings. The Constitution deems Congress the authority to work out the taxes and spending, but the Trump administration’s stance could set the stage for significant challenges to this power.
As legal experts suggest, it potentially pushes the boundaries of the executive’s power on the unilateral monetary cuts to organizations that Congress has set funds for, but which the President disagrees with fundamentally. Predominantly, these cuts affect programs dealing with climate change and diversity.
Certain experts believe that the administration’s only shot at success in this matter resides in the acknowledgment of an unprecedented Presidential power to withhold the distribution of funds. However, David Cole, a seasoned law instructor at Georgetown and Ex-American Civil Liberties Union’s legal director, feels that the President possesses the means to effect changes in federal spending.
Such changes, as per Cole, can be effectuated using congressional majorities. In case the President opposes the Bills passed, including one of appropriation, then Trump has the ability to urge the Congress to bring amendments to the law.
Meanwhile, the administration appears to be bracing itself for probable clashes over numerous contractual agreements. The new standpoint wavering on funds has already started impacting significant decisions such as the hiring of seasonal workforces at Walker Basin Conservancy. A non-profit aiming to restore a dwindling lake in rural Nevada, the Conservancy heavily relies on federal grants.
Trump recently issued an order that instructs heads of agencies to review grants allocated to non-governmental organizations. This shows his clear intent to shape government spending according to national needs.
Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta, erstwhile top budget officials, criticized a 1974 Bill that upheld Congress’s power over financial matters, referring to it as a ‘presidential albatross’. How deep and wide the implications of these efforts by the administration to manage domestic spending as determined by Congress will be, remains an open question.
Several official affidavits present insights into the impact at the state level. They underline the extent of disruptions caused by the administration’s renewed approach toward contract handling.
Pointing out the impacts of the freeze on grants, Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, claimed the freeze to be a breach of a binding contract. She argued that to pause legally obligated funds for policy reasons without congressional approval is not favored by the law.