\n<\/p>\n
The Constitution of the United States requires the president to take care<\/a> that the laws be faithfully executed. All that means, in plain English, is that when an act of Congress becomes law, the chief executive only has one job: to be a faithful steward of it. In the early days of the first Donald Trump<\/strong> administration, a cadre of lawyers and attorneys general aligned with the Democratic Party strategized<\/a> around invoking that constitutional requirement against him\u2014in essence, to bring a case that would get the courts to declare that he must in good faith enforce the laws of the United States, even those he may not personally agree with.<\/p>\n Some eight years later, with Trump back in power, that basic tenet of constitutional governance, and others<\/a>, is being tested, disrupted, if not ignored altogether by a president who just two weeks ago swore an oath\u2014his second\u2014to preserve, protect, and defend it. And late on Friday, in response to a \u201cwide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous\u201d freeze on critical federal funding that Trump demanded<\/a> during his first days in office, wreaking havoc<\/a> and upending lives across the US and beyond<\/a>, a federal judge in New England ordered<\/a> his administration to stop some of it.<\/p>\n The ruling by John McConnell,<\/strong> the chief judge in the federal district court in Rhode Island, was categorical. \u201cDuring the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants\u2019 compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States\u2019 access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms,\u201d McConnell wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n As that language suggests, the order was in response to a multistate lawsuit, led by New York, broadly challenging the Trump administration\u2019s across-the-board spending freeze, which was set in motion a week earlier when Trump signed a flurry of executive orders targeting everything from foreign-aid assistance and nongovernmental organizations to conservative boogeymen including diversity measures, so-called woke gender ideology, and green-energy initiatives. The freeze turned into a frenzy<\/a> once the White House Office of Management and Budget sent out a memorandum<\/a>, now rescinded<\/a>, instructing all federal agencies to institute a \u201ctemporary pause\u201d on all programs so that the administration could figure out whether they aligned with \u201cthe law and the President\u2019s priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n The thing is, congressionally appropriated funds, signed by the president, are already \u201cthe law.\u201d As McConnell found, \u201cCongress has not given the Executive limitless power to broadly and indefinitely pause all funds that it has expressly directed to specific recipients and purposes and therefore the Executive\u2019s actions violate the separation of powers.\u201d In a post on Bluesky on Sunday, Lawfare editor in chief Benjamin Wittes<\/strong> posted a guidance document<\/a> from the Department of Justice informing federal agencies that McConnell\u2019s order is broad\u2014such that even unlawful freezes in foreign aid, which are causing untold harm to humanitarian, democracy-sustaining, and public health projects in other nations, may be covered by it.<\/p>\n Or are they? Because in another filing<\/a> on Monday, informing the judge that the Trump administration is in compliance, Justice Department lawyers sought clarification about the order\u2019s scope. And they all but declared that the spending freeze is on in all other respects not covered by the ruling. \u201cGiven that the Plaintiffs only challenged the OMB Memorandum, Defendants do not read the Order to prevent the President or his advisors from communicating with federal agencies or the public about the President\u2019s priorities regarding federal spending,\u201d the lawyers wrote<\/a>. \u201cNor do Defendants construe the Order as enjoining the President\u2019s Executive Orders, which are plainly lawful and unchallenged in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n With another ruling expected<\/a> in Washington in a separate case<\/a> challenging the spending chaos, and as federal agencies begin to process what these rulings and the guidance mean, this week will clarify what Maine senator Angus King<\/strong> has called<\/a> \u201cthe most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s wisdom in not losing sight of the human impact of constitutional crises. In a declaration<\/a> filed in federal court ahead of a hearing in Washington today, one tiny nonprofit in the ruby-red state of West Virginia, dedicated to serving people with disabilities, told the judge that the harm to its operations was ongoing. For one, the nonprofit, whose name is redacted, subsists \u201cpaycheck-to-paycheck\u201d\u2014and no payments have been received from the federal government since the freeze went into effect, leading to layoffs and reduced services.<\/p>\n \u201cWith the freeze still in effect we would have enough money on hand to function with our reduced skeleton staff for only two or three more weeks, serving only the consumers with the most dire and pressing needs,\u201d the declaration reads. \u201cOn Friday, the Board recognized that if federal funds do not begin flowing again in the next two to three weeks, we would have no option other than to lay off the remaining two employees and cease all services.\u201d<\/p>\n The affidavit<\/a> is worth reading in full, if only to show that smash-and-grab governing can have a real effect on humans and some of the neediest among us. Expect more stories like this to surface in the days ahead\u2014including on the human toll of dismantling USAID<\/a>, which Trump and Elon Musk<\/strong> seem bent on shutting down, and the impact that will have on critical development funding in nations that truly need it. More recalcitrance from the Trump administration is almost certain, as the Justice Department has indicated in court. (And no, Trump cannot just defund an agency, let alone abolish it, with the stroke of a pen. You need a law for that<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Here\u2019s where it\u2019s helpful to take a step back and consider the deeper meaning of Judge McConnell\u2019s ruling, which will no doubt be appealed and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In rebuffing the Trump administration\u2019s defense that the government is duty-bound \u201cto align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities,\u201d McConnell explained that that arrangement gets it exactly backward. That\u2019s a \u201cconstitutionally flawed statement,\u201d he wrote<\/a>. \u201cThe Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through \u2018Presidential priorities.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Appropriations is the constitutional term for the so-called power of the purse, which Congress controls through the budget process or other lawmaking. Trump can almost certainly influence future budgets, as he did<\/a> during his first term, and work with lawmakers to get what he wants, or what he doesn\u2019t want, in future appropriations. Or else call for the repeal of Joe Biden<\/strong>\u2019s signature on the Inflation Reduction Act. But the current budget and the IRA are already the law. The president may not like it, but it\u2019s his duty to abide by it. Alternatively, he can ask Congress to take action with the tools Congress has established: by notifying lawmakers that he\u2019d like to effectuate a freeze, and get their blessing for it. As McConnell explained, nothing of the sort happened here.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n