Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
A little over a week into his second term, President Trump is making significant moves to assert his power, igniting concerns among critics who see it as undermining the foundational principle of government separation of powers that has been in place for centuries.
One of the administration’s boldest actions came recently when it announced a decision to temporarily halt federal funding to evaluate compliance with Trump’s directive to ban diversity programs. This controversial move was poised to drastically impact various sectors reliant on federal aid, including policing, domestic violence shelters, nutritional assistance, and disaster recovery initiatives, before a federal judge intervened.
While the administration asserted that Medicaid was unaffected, it confirmed that an online portal for states to submit reimbursement claims was unexpectedly taken offline—a situation the White House attributed to an error.
Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox
See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment, and feel-good stories.
Legal analysts have pointed out that the president lacks the authority to cut spending on programs sanctioned by Congress, as the U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the power of managing appropriations to Congress. The Impoundment Control Act, established over fifty years ago, reinforces this by prohibiting the president from suspending payments on Congress-approved programs.
“What keeps the president from becoming a dictator is Congress’s control over financial resources,” said Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University. He emphasized that even a temporary suspension constitutes a breach of the law, asserting that this mechanism provides a necessary check on presidential authority.
Opposition voices, including many Democrats, voiced strong disapproval of the recent actions, labeling them as unconstitutional. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, remarked that this move represents a severe challenge to congressional authority.
Though a few Republican figures criticized the actions, the majority offered their support. North Dakota Senator Kevin Cramer observed that it seems Trump is probing the boundaries of his authority, an inclination that did not surprise many observers.
From a procedural standpoint, some argue that the administration initially appeared to comply with existing regulations regarding potential budgetary reductions. However, Rachel Snyderman, formerly of the Office of Management and Budget and currently at the Bipartisan Policy Center, clarified that any cuts planned by the administration must ultimately receive congressional approval—a challenging prospect, as evidenced by Trump’s earlier proposals that Congress did not act on.
The recent proposal for federal grant freezes follows Trump’s campaign pledge to take decisive action upon assuming office. Since taking office, his administration has undertaken various necessitating actions that call into question their adherence to legal constraints.
Recent developments showcase the administration’s ongoing initiative to streamline the federal workforce by presenting an offer of pay until the end of September to employees who agree to resign.
These actions have incited a wave of legal challenges questioning their constitutionality. A federal judge in Seattle has already placed a hold on Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship, citing clear violations of the Constitution. Furthermore, a federal judge in Washington agreed to freeze the administration’s spending pause order pending a more extensive review.
Democratic attorneys general have been quick to challenge these moves in court. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez expressed concern over the unconsidered nature of the order and emphasized the importance of collaborative dialogue between the president and Congress in managing national priorities.
The characterization of the grant pause as a “stop” aligns with long-held ambitions among some of Trump’s allies to call into question the legality of the Impoundment Control Act. They argue that the president, as the primary overseer of funds distribution, should have leverage over expenditure decisions.
Experts believe that while the administration may be preparing for a legal battle over its financial authority, the flawed presentation of its case was not part of the original strategy. Acknowledging the necessity for meticulousness, Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution articulated that expediency over precision is a signature aspect of Trump’s governing style.
At her inaugural press briefing, Trump’s new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, encouraged organizations in need of grants to communicate with the administration and articulate how their operations align with presidential priorities.
Overall, Republican lawmakers have largely remained oblivious to any uproar ensuing from the funding freeze. Representative Dusty Johnson from South Dakota noted that Trump campaigned vigorously against expenditures that did not resonate with his values.
In stark contrast, Democrats and other critics have reacted with indignation, contending that the president should respect constitutional frameworks for enacting legal reforms. Senator Bernie Sanders stated emphatically that while Trump can advocate for legislative changes, he cannot act as if he possesses monarchical authority.
Chafetz warned that the apparent absence of significant opposition from Republican lawmakers raises concerns about the erosion of legislative power in this evolving power dynamic. Even if Trump ultimately faces legal defeat, there looms a possibility that he might emerge emboldened by stretching these boundaries.
“This seems to be a foundational aspect of their governance philosophy,” he concluded, highlighting the trend of undermining institutions they oppose.
___
Media reports indicate diverse contributions from various news organizations in compiling this information.
Source
www.yahoo.com