Washington – A federal judge blocked a directive of the Trump administration that would have frozen a variety of federal financial aid, while the administration evaluated whether it opposed the new president's agenda, discovering that the directive had the potential to cause “irreparable damage “To Americans.
The United States District Judge Loren Alikhan delayed the Office of Administration and Budget Memorandum to enter into force until at least 5 in the afternoon on Monday, while a legal challenge is developed by a coalition of non -purposes of profit.
Alikhan's ruling, a designated by President Biden, followed a wave of confusion and anger among the Democratic leaders, state officials and managers of federal programs on the vagueness of the directive, as well as the efforts of the White House to return its reach after to make first the first. Memo on Monday night.
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, Executive Director of American Public Health Assn. – Part of the coalition he demanded – said that the directive had the potential to cause “much dysfunction and loss of services”, and welcomed the judge's decision to stop it while the dispute continues.
“When you run a non -profit organization or a small business, and basically your bank account has been closed … you have no idea if you will receive a refund for that work, that is a big problem” . saying.
The order of the administration also faced a separate legal challenge of California and other states, where officials argued that the directive was an unconstitutional taking of President Trump that would damage vulnerable populations.
“We will not stay while the president tries to interrupt vital programs that feed our children, will provide medical attention to our families and support housing in our communities,” California Atty. General Rob Bonta said at a press conference. “We will not keep it while the president breaks the law and exceeds his authority, as described in our Constitution.”
Bonta said that the order threatens billions of dollars in federal funds, and was “reckless, is dangerous, unprecedented of scope and devastating in its planned effect.”
New York Atty. General Letitia James, who leads the effort with Bonta, described the “clearly unconstitutional” note.
“The president does not decide what laws enforce and for whom,” said James. “When Congress dedicates funds for a program, the president cannot pull that financing per whim.”
Bonta and James spoke after a day of rotating speculation about the scope of the order, which the White House minimized even when it worked to specify the scope of the order.
The White House issued an updated memorandum on Tuesday that extended a list of exempt programs of the financing pause, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the food assistance program known as SNAP. He would also be exempt from federal funds for small businesses, farmers, subsidies winners, Head Start, rental assistance “and other similar programs,” said the White House.
Karoline Leavitt, Trump press secretary, said the directive “was not a general break about federal assistance and subsidies programs” and that anyone who receives “individual assistance from the federal government” would continue to receive that help. He also noted that the cuts, which were destined to enter into force on Tuesday afternoon, were temporary, and that federal programs were free to call Trump's budget officials to argue that their programs should not freeze.
He also suggested that the administration was clear about the scope of the order, and the confusion on that forehead was limited to the media.
Both James and Bonta said that the White House attempts to minimize the scope of the order after confusing programs managers and the terrifying beneficiaries of benefits throughout the country did not resolve their concerns or denied the need for their demand.
On the contrary, Bonta said that the initial order had “thrown state programs into chaos”, and the White House attempts to clarify that they had “fed farther further” confusion.
James said some states were already informing that the funds had been frozen, even for the programs that the White House said they would not be affected. Many states had been excluded from their Medicaid refund systems, he said. Other programs affected in different states included subsidies from Head Start and Child Development Block, he said.
California is expected to distribute $ 168.3 billion in federal funds and subsidies during the fiscal year ending June 30. Officials are evaluating what financing is at risk. Los Angeles officials were also struggling to make sense of the order, which could affect housing coupons and homeless assistance subsidies, according to internal emails.
Bonta said that he is coordinating with other state officials and believes that the federal financing of disasters for the recovery of the devastating forest fires of the remains at risk under the order.
Governor Gavin Newsom said he was still sure of the State Association with the Federal Government to meet fire -related needs, but also said that the directive on financial aid was “completely inconsistent with the law.”
“It's unconstitutional and I think any target observer sees it,” he said.
The uproar began on Monday night, after Matthew J. Vaeth, interim director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a memorandum that announced a “temporary pause” about subsidies, loans and other financial assists.
Vaeth wrote that the voters had given Trump a “mandate to increase the impact of each federal taxpayers,” and Trump needed to determine what expenditure on the government aligned with his agenda.
“Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing in administration's priorities, focusing taxpayers dollars to advance a stronger and more safe America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing US energy and manufacturing, ending the 'Wokeness' and the Government weapon, promoting efficiency in government, and making the United States again healthy, “he wrote.” , the transgender and the new green treatment is a waste of dollars of taxpayers that does not improve the daily life of those we serve. “
The Democrats immediately began to sound alarms and call the unconstitutional directive and far beyond the reach of Trump's power as president, given that Congress, not the White House, usually appropriates funds.
The vice president of the Senate, Patty Murray (D-Wash) said that the fact that “Congress has the power of the bag” is “very clear in the Constitution.”
Senator Jeff Merkley. His committee is scheduled to vote on Thursday by the Russ Vought Trump nomination as the head of the White House Budget. Vought is the architect of freezing of spending.
The original memorandum ordered all federal agencies to carry out a “comprehensive analysis” of their expenses to determine which of them is “consistent with the president's policies” and the series of executive orders that Trump has issued.
Meanwhile, he said, federal agencies must, in “the measure allowed in applicable laws,” stop all disbursements of funds or “other relevant agency activities” that may be covered by Trump's orders, “including, among others , financial, financial assistance for foreign aid, non -governmental organizations, Dei, aroused gender ideology and the new green agreement, ”Vaeth wrote.
The pause, according to the memorandum, will give time to the Trump administration to “determine the best uses of financing” in the future.
The main Republicans largely defended the measure, suggesting that it was a normal act for incoming administration.
“I think that is a normal practice at the beginning of the administration, until they have the opportunity to review how money is spent,” said the leader of the majority of the Senate, John Thune, on Tuesday morning.
The Democrats did not agree, issuing especially critical reactions before the clarifications of the White House.
The leader of the Senate minority, Charles E. Schumer (Dn.y.) described the directive as “outrageous” and “a dagger in the heart of the average American family in red states and blue states, in cities, in suburb, in rural areas “.
The former president of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) wrote that Trump's illegal scheme will increase costs, will damage working families and deny the critical resources for needy Americans. ” Representative John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) said the order will cause Americans to suffer.
A coalition that includes the American Public Health Association. And the National Council of Business Organizations is also independently challenging the memorandum in the Court.
The order followed a separate directive from the Trump administration to stop a variety of foreign aid.
Mark Peterson, a UCLA professor who studies public policy and political sciences, said that the original memorandum was not precedents and left “extreme ambiguity in terms of what affects and how it applies”, as well as its duration.
“Anything that has, from the point of view of the Trump administration, the aroma of dealing with the problems of equity or inclusion could be threatened,” said Peterson, and “there are so many misunderstandings about what those problems are.”
Times Pinho personnel writers reported from Washington, rector of San Francisco and Alpert Reyes de los Ángeles. The writer of Times, Taryn Luna, in Sacramento, contributed to this report.
