ADVERTISEMENT

Legal challenges to Trump funding freezes--will the elimination of Chevron deference limit Trump's goal?

BradStevens

BradStevens

All-American
Sep 7, 2023
8,972
16,947
113
www.pbs.org

Trump orders temporary funding freeze that could affect trillions of dollars

The White House is pausing federal grants and loans starting Tuesday as President Donald Trump's administration begins an across-the-board ideological review of its spending, causing confusion and panic among organizations that rely on Washington for their financial lifeline.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

So Trump is freezing trillions of dollars in federal outlays, passed by Congress, to review for DEI, trans, etc. advocacy and to limit it.

I'm not sure how much agency interpretation of the various laws that the admin is relying on to justify this action. Wonder if this will see some monumental decisions, based on the elimination of Chevron deference, going against right-wing wishes?
 
Last edited:
BradStevens said:
www.pbs.org

Trump orders temporary funding freeze that could affect trillions of dollars

The White House is pausing federal grants and loans starting Tuesday as President Donald Trump's administration begins an across-the-board ideological review of its spending, causing confusion and panic among organizations that rely on Washington for their financial lifeline.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

So Trump is freezing trillions of dollars in federal outlays, passed by Congress, to review for DEI, trans, etc. advocacy and to limit it.

I'm not sure how much agency interpretation of the various laws that the admin is relying on to justify this action. Wonder if this will see some monumental decisions based on the elimination of Chevron deference go against right-wing wishes?
Click to expand...

I figured the issue would be limits on his impoundment authority under the Impoundment Control Act. The summary I read was that he could ask Congress for the power to impound funds (which could be full rescission or deferral) and they have 45 days to respond....which they often just don't.

I hadn't really considered the relevance to Chevron. But that's a pretty fascinating question.

I've seen some people really losing their shit over it -- like it's the sign of a dictatorship quickly forming. But I don't think a lot of people realize that presidents used to be able to impound funds all they wanted. Jefferson was the first to do it and it was completely legal (and normal) until 1974....when Nixon impounded something that pissed Congress off.

I don't think that statute has ever been adjudicated. And I just figured Trump was doing this as a way to see if SCOTUS would give him full pre-Nixon impoundment power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUJIM, Spartans9312, mcmurtry66 and 1 other person
crazed_hoosier2 said:
I figured the issue would be limits on his impoundment authority under the Impoundment Control Act. The summary I read was that he could ask Congress for the power to impound funds (which could be full rescission or deferral) and they have 45 days to respond....which they often just don't.

I hadn't really considered the relevance to Chevron. But that's a pretty fascinating question.

I've seen some people really losing their shit over it -- like it's the sign of a dictatorship quickly forming. But I don't think a lot of people realize that presidents used to be able to impound funds all they wanted. Jefferson was the first to do it and it was completely legal (and normal) until 1974....when Nixon impounded something that pissed Congress off.

I don't think that statute has ever been adjudicated. And I just figured Trump was doing this as a way to see if SCOTUS would give him full pre-Nixon impoundment power.
Click to expand...
Did you read a good article on this? Could you link it?
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
I figured the issue would be limits on his impoundment authority under the Impoundment Control Act. The summary I read was that he could ask Congress for the power to impound funds (which could be full rescission or deferral) and they have 45 days to respond....which they often just don't.

I hadn't really considered the relevance to Chevron. But that's a pretty fascinating question.

I've seen some people really losing their shit over it -- like it's the sign of a dictatorship quickly forming. But I don't think a lot of people realize that presidents used to be able to impound funds all they wanted. Jefferson was the first to do it and it was completely legal (and normal) until 1974....when Nixon impounded something that pissed Congress off.

I don't think that statute has ever been adjudicated. And I just figured Trump was doing this as a way to see if SCOTUS would give him full pre-Nixon impoundment power.
Click to expand...
Funny. I’m sure Trump is just playing. Nothing to see here
 
I haven't read anything on this, but I said in another thread, and I'm only dropping it here to stake out ground for priority if I'm prophetic, that the admin is going squarely after the APA.
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
I figured the issue would be limits on his impoundment authority under the Impoundment Control Act. The summary I read was that he could ask Congress for the power to impound funds (which could be full rescission or deferral) and they have 45 days to respond....which they often just don't.

I hadn't really considered the relevance to Chevron. But that's a pretty fascinating question.

I've seen some people really losing their shit over it -- like it's the sign of a dictatorship quickly forming. But I don't think a lot of people realize that presidents used to be able to impound funds all they wanted. Jefferson was the first to do it and it was completely legal (and normal) until 1974....when Nixon impounded something that pissed Congress off.

I don't think that statute has ever been adjudicated. And I just figured Trump was doing this as a way to see if SCOTUS would give him full pre-Nixon impoundment power.
Click to expand...
Nixon impounded funds over policy disagreements. I think presidents should be allowed to do what Jefferson did, which was a common sense response to a changing situation. But Nixon went too far. Of course, as a result, Congress now goes too far, and there is no check on the never-ending pork buffet. So lose-lose, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU, JamieDimonsBalls, Baller23Boogie and 2 others
Bulk VanderHuge said:
I seem to remember being told that voting for Trump would be a better choice because he would just play golf and not do anything, and certainly wouldn't be "transformative" in his actions. I guess he's been co-opted by the billionaires.
Click to expand...
Yeah I said that. I guess I didn’t account for musk. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Clearly
 
Bulk VanderHuge said:
I seem to remember being told that voting for Trump would be a better choice because he would just play golf and not do anything, and certainly wouldn't be "transformative" in his actions. I guess he's been co-opted by the billionaires.
Click to expand...
He has that 2025 playbook that he doesn't know anything about that he's following. Simple enough, just go down the list, check boxes and give orders, and let the others deal with the fallout while you play golf.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: larsIU, Bill4411, twenty02 and 6 others
UncleMark said:
He has that 2025 playbook that he doesn't know anything about that he's following. Simple enough, just go down the list, check boxes and give orders, and let the others deal with the fallout while you play golf.
Click to expand...
Project 2025 was literally written by members of the past and current administration. Even down to the appointments to make. Vance and Kevin Roberts are like best friends.

How did people ever buy that we weren’t going to implement it?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411, DANC and BradStevens
GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly said:
Project 2025 was literally written by members of the past and current administration. Even down to the appointments to make. Vance and Kevin Roberts are like best friends.

How did people ever buy that we weren’t going to implement it?
Click to expand...
Why did all the MAGAs get all indignant whenever someone said Trump would implement it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
UncleMark said:
He has that 2025 playbook that he doesn't know anything about that he's following. Simple enough, just go down the list, check boxes and give orders, and let the others deal with the fallout while you play golf.
Click to expand...
Trump hasn’t read project 2025. Come on. After consideration I suspect I’m sort of right. Instead of trump playing golf and not giving a shit he probably said buy my way in and do whatever you want. I don’t give a shit
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Why did all the MAGAs get all indignant whenever someone said Trump would implement it?
Click to expand...
Democrats ran a pretty effective smear campaign against it. And some of the more socially conservative aspects are out of step with the country.

But I don’t think the average voter gives a damn about unitary executive theory. And that where it looks like they’re pushing the hardest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and BradStevens
BradStevens said:
www.pbs.org

Trump orders temporary funding freeze that could affect trillions of dollars

The White House is pausing federal grants and loans starting Tuesday as President Donald Trump's administration begins an across-the-board ideological review of its spending, causing confusion and panic among organizations that rely on Washington for their financial lifeline.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

So Trump is freezing trillions of dollars in federal outlays, passed by Congress, to review for DEI, trans, etc. advocacy and to limit it.

I'm not sure how much agency interpretation of the various laws that the admin is relying on to justify this action. Wonder if this will see some monumental decisions, based on the elimination of Chevron deference, going against right-wing wishes?
Click to expand...

Here's a small sampling of why he's doing it:

freebeacon.com

'Equity and Environmental Justice,' 'LGBTQI+ Inclusive Development Policy,' and 'Latinx Politics': Inside the Battle Between Political and Career Staffers at the State Department and USAID

When the Trump administration implemented a 90-day freeze of foreign aid aimed at ensuring the funding is "consistent with U.S. foreign policy under the America First agenda," Secretary of State Marco Rubio allowed career staffers to submit waivers for projects they felt were aligned with that...
freebeacon.com freebeacon.com

Multiple that crap by every agency out there and you can see why they want to get a handle on this sh-t... A few million here and there can add up to real money... It's basically Monopoly money to these career staffers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812 and DANC
The Original Happy Goat said:
Nixon impounded funds over policy disagreements. I think presidents should be allowed to do what Jefferson did, which was a common sense response to a changing situation. But Nixon went too far. Of course, as a result, Congress now goes too far, and there is no check on the never-ending pork buffet. So lose-lose, I guess.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

But I also think Congress has the power to restrict the president’s impoundment authority.

So Trump’s going to lose this lawsuit and I highly doubt that he’s the president that will be able to convince Congress to give it back to him.

Maybe his successor will be able to get that done. I think it would be a good thing for the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
BradStevens said:
That's OK. Weren't you wrong about Biden, too?

Not all of us can be dbm
Click to expand...
I was. I thought Biden was going to be Obama 2.0 or old moderate joe. Not AOC. He went crazy his first 100 days too. Border etc. history repeating itself. Both with others running the show
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly said:
Project 2025 was literally written by members of the past and current administration. Even down to the appointments to make. Vance and Kevin Roberts are like best friends.

How did people ever buy that we weren’t going to implement it?
Click to expand...
I think most people thought it would be implemented - and they liked it
 
DANC said:
I think most people thought it would be implemented - and they liked it
Click to expand...
Definitely not DANC. End of no fault divorces and shit. Trump saying loudly he knows nothing about it. Vocal opposition saying why the fck would they release this shit just before an election. It gives Dems ammo
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
mcmurtry66 said:
Definitely not DANC. End of no fault divorces and shit. Trump saying loudly he knows nothing about it. Vocal opposition saying why the fck would they release this shit just before an election. It gives Dems ammo
Click to expand...
I said that tongue-in-cheek. I doubt most people had any idea what was in it and didnt bother to find out.

I look at it like a Party platform used to be - a lot of grandiose statements and ideas that they never have any intention of implementing, but sounds good to their base.

Just because it's in the document doesn't mean it's going to happen. Divorce laws are by state anyway, if that's what anyone is worrrying about.
 
DANC said:
I said that tongue-in-cheek. I doubt most people had any idea what was in it and didnt bother to find out.

I look at it like a Party platform used to be - a lot of grandiose statements and ideas that they never have any intention of implementing, but sounds good to their base.

Just because it's in the document doesn't mean it's going to happen. Divorce laws are by state anyway, if that's what anyone is worrrying about.
Click to expand...
I still don’t believe trump ever read it. I think he was just going to do whatever. Then musk cut a 260 million dollar deal and now we’re just doing whatever he wants. That’s my guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
mcmurtry66 said:
Definitely not DANC. End of no fault divorces and shit. Trump saying loudly he knows nothing about it. Vocal opposition saying why the fck would they release this shit just before an election. It gives Dems ammo
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t no fault divorce be outside federal purview and a matter of state law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls, larsIU and mcmurtry66
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back