The Dictatorship

Trump is daring anyone to stop his illegal funding freeze

Published

1 year ago

January 29, 2025

Trump is daring anyone to stop his illegal funding freeze

When President Donald Trump named Russel Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget, I warned it was a sign that his administration intended to seize total control of federal spending from Congress. Two weeks ago, I said that if Vought were confirmed, billions of dollars in projects would go unfunded at the president’s whim, no matter what legislators have said.

I was wrong. They didn’t even wait for Vought to be confirmed.

Instead, on Monday night, OMB’s acting director, Matthew J. Vaeth, sent a memo across the federal government ordering a freeze of “all Federal financial assistance.” The memo insists on calling this a “pause.” A federal judge intervened on Tuesday afternoon, issuing an administrative stay to hold off on the OMB order being fully implemented until Monday at soonest. But beyond the immediate and likely catastrophic impact of halting, even briefly, any portion of the $3 trillion in annual spending Vaeth cites, the memo serves as a reminder that any “temporary” power that Trump claims for himself won’t be easily relinquished.

While Vaeth was anything but vague about the reasoning behind the funding freeze, the scope of the pause itself has been wildly confusing.

“The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve,” Vaeth wrote in the memowhich was first reported by Marisa Kabas of The Handbasket. It then required federal agencies to go through all grants and loans that it doles out to ensure that they align with the firehose of executive orders that Trump has issued. In the meantime, Vaeth ordered agencies to “temporarily pause” any programs that could contradict those orders “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”

While Vaeth was anything but vague about the reasoning behind the funding freeze, the scope of the pause itself has been wildly confusing. While exempting programs that provide assistance “directly to individuals,” as well as Social Security and Medicare, the order could potentially affect a big and broad swath of programming. Accompanying the memo was a nearly 900-page spreadsheet for officials to plug in the details of their programs and identify which funding is legally required to be distributed before March 15, when the current short-term spending bill runs out of money. And because the two-page memo lacked specific guidance, the odds are good that program officials — with the encouragement of their newly installed political minderswho the order tasks with overseeing this process— will err on the side of shutting down anything that could conceivably fall into one of Vaeth’s ideological buckets.

For a glimpse at how this will play out in the short term, look to the halt on foreign aid handed down last week. That freeze didn’t just call for a review but a “stop work” order for all currently funded programs. On Monday, several U.S. Agency for International Development staffers were placed on leave for supposedly violating the pause — a warning to others who might want to keep doing their jobs in the face of a blatantly illegal order. Since that halt, a sense of confusion and concern has reigned in the international aid community.

The mess will surely worsen now that domestic programs are included. Not even the administration seems to know the scope of what it’s asking: When reporters asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, at her first briefing, if Medicaid would be affected, she replied, “I’ll check back on that and get back to you.” OMB itself issued a follow-up that said Medicaid, SNAP, Pell grants and “other similar programs” will not be paused.

The shifting guidance has had nigh-cartoonish consequences. The spokesperson for Meals on Wheels on Tuesday told HuffPost’s Arthur Delaney that “the uncertainty right now is creating chaos for local Meals on Wheels providers not knowing whether they should be serving meals today.” (Leavitt said at her briefing that the group would not be included in the pause.) The idea that a program as innocuous seeming as Meals on Wheels could see its funding frozen may seem absurd. But as we saw with “anti-woke” laws in Floridavagueness prompts pre-emptive cooperation and censorship from those who fear retaliation. Can anyone say with a straight face they know for sure whether MAGA views feeding the elderly as overly “inclusionary” for old people?

Aside from being a major crisis for these organizations, the memo from OMB is a bright red warning sign that any funding the White House “temporarily” pauses could easily become permanently blocked. Under the Impound Control Act of 1974it doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t like how federal money is being spent. He simply doesn’t have the power to withhold, or “impound,” funds that Congress has appropriated. There are a few exceptions to this, but as University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos noted on Blueskyeven temporary pauses are illegal under the Impound Control Act. But in his Senate confirmation hearing this month, Vought said that he thinks the act is unconstitutional. He has argued in the past that a president can unilaterally withhold whatever funding doesn’t align with his vision. And if Congress doesn’t like it, Vought says, that’s too bad.

With Congress inactive, that leaves enforcement most likely up to the courts.

Speaking of Congress, the ranking Democrats from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees wrote to OMB on Monday night to demand that Vaeth “reverse course to ensure requirements enacted into law are faithfully met and the nation’s spending laws are implemented as intended.” House Democrats are meanwhile out of town for the week but holding an emergency virtual caucus meeting on Wednesday afternoon to discuss the “illegal Republican funding freeze.”

But it seems congressional Republicans are more than happy to give up their power of the purse. The GOP-controlled Senate shows no signs of delaying confirmation of Vought or any of Trump’s other nominees, even as the president effectively strips legislators of their authority. Amazingly, House Appropriations Chair Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., is apparently unclear on whether appropriations even count as “laws” rather than a “directive.” (They do, but it really shows how far we’ve come from when the House Appropriations chair was one of the most powerful positions in the country.)

With Congress inactive, that leaves enforcement most likely up to the courts. Democratic state attorneys general are already preparing a lawsuit to get the freeze overturned, and further briefings will soon move forward in the suit from an NGO that prompted Tuesday’s administrative stay, setting us up for a potential speed run to the Supreme Court. Given Chief Justice John Roberts’ views about the separation of powersit’s hard to see him lining up against the Impound Control Act and its clear support for Congress’ Article I control over federal spending. But as the Prospect’s Daniel Dayen notedit’s clear that the administration wanted to be sued over this action and that Trump’s advisers are confident their cause will prevail among enough justices to win out.

As the matter winds through the courts, Democrats can’t sit back and let this slide. There needs to be members of Congress hitting every local news station to explain why popular programs like Head Start might be shuttered if deemed a “DEI initiative,” how the GOP is glad people’s medical bills aren’t being paidand exactly who is to blame. Further, it should be a no-brainer that any funding bill that requires Democratic support — including keeping the government open in mid-March — must include clear language repudiating Trump’s cash grab before it receives a single Democratic vote. Anything less will be an open invitation for this administration to continue attacking both our constitutional system and the millions of Americans who depend on the funds Trump is illegally slashing.

Hayes Brown

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

The Dictatorship

Democrats say White House offer on ICE is ‘insufficient’ as Homeland Security funding set to expire

Published

40 minutes ago

February 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats say White House offer on ICE is ‘insufficient’ as Homeland Security funding set to expire

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional leaders said Tuesday that a deal was still possible with the White House on Homeland Security Department funding before it expires this weekend. But the two sides were still far apart as Democrats demanded new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

After federal agents fatally shot two protesters in Minneapolis last month, Democrats say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to be “dramatically” reined in and are prepared to let Homeland Security shut down if their demands aren’t met. On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they had rejected a White House counteroffer that “included neither details nor legislative text” and does not address “the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.”

“We simply want ICE to follow the same standards that most law enforcement agencies across America already follow,” Schumer said Tuesday. “Democrats await the next answer from our Republican counterparts.”

The Democrats’ rejection of the Republican counteroffer comes as time is running short, with a shutdown of the Homeland Security Department threatening to begin Saturday. Among the Democrats’ demands are a requirement for judicial warrants, better identification of DHS officers, new use-of-force standards and a stop to racial profiling.

Finding agreement on the charged, partisan issue of immigration enforcement will be exceedingly difficult. But even as lawmakers in both parties were skepticala White House official said that the administration was having constructive talks with both Republicans and Democrats. The official, granted anonymity to speak about ongoing deliberations, stressed that Trump wanted the government to remain open and for Homeland Security services to be funded.

Senate leaders also expressed some optimism.

“There’s no reason we can’t do this” by the end of the week, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said after meeting with his caucus on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said there have been “some really productive conversations.”

Democratic demands

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masksto show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

Among other asks, Democrats say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests, “improve warrant procedures and standards,” ensure the law is clear that officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant and require that before a person can be detained, it’s verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Democrats made the demands for new restrictions on ICE and other federal law enforcement after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, and some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

Many Democrats said they won’t vote for another penny of Homeland Security funding until enforcement is radically scaled back.

“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” Jeffries said. “Period. Full stop.”

Republican counterproposal

Jeffries said Tuesday that the White House’s offer “walked away from” their proposals for better identification of ICE agents, for more judicial warrants and for a prohibition on excessive use of force. Republicans also rejected their demand for an end to racial or ethnic profiling, Jeffries said.

“The White House is not serious at this moment in dramatically reforming ICE,” Jeffries said.

Republican lawmakers have also pushed back on the requests. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a close ally of Trump, said Tuesday that he’s willing to discuss more body cameras and better training — both of which are already in the Homeland spending bill — but that he would reject the Democrats’ most central demands.

“They start talking about judicial warrants? No. They start talking about demasking them? No, not doing that. They want them to have a photo ID with their name on it? Absolutely not,” Mullin said.

Republicans have said ICE agents should be allowed to wear masks because they are more frequently targeted than other law enforcement officials.

“People are doxing them and targeting them,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday. “We’ve got to talk about things that are reasonable and achievable.”

Some Republicans also have demands of their own, including the addition of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote and restrictions on cities that they say do not do enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

At a House hearing on Tuesdaythe acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said his agency is “only getting started” and would not be intimidated as his officers carry out Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Trump deals with Democrats

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated out from a larger spending measure that became law last week and congressional Republicans followed his lead. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Feb. 13, creating a brief window for action as the two parties discuss new restrictions on ICE and other federal officers.

But even as he agreed to separate the funding, Trump has not publicly responded to the Democrats’ specific asks or suggested any areas of potential compromise.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said late last week that the Trump administration is willing to discuss some items on the Democrats’ list, but “others don’t seem like they are grounded in any common sense, and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Thune said Tuesday that “there are certain red lines that I think both sides have, things they are not going to negotiate on, but there are some things they are going to negotiate on, and that’s where I think the potential deal space is here.”

It was, so far, unclear what those issues were.

“We are very committed to making sure that federal law enforcement officers are able to do their jobs and to be safe doing them,” Thune said of Republicans.

Consequences of a shutdown

In addition to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the homeland security bill includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration, among other agencies. If DHS shuts down, Thune said last week, “there’s a very good chance we could see more travel problems” similar to the 43-day government closure last year.

Thune has said Republicans will try to pass a two- to four-week extension of the Homeland Security funding while negotiations continue.

Many Democrats are unlikely to vote for another extension. But Republicans could potentially win enough votes in both chambers from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.

“The ball is in the Republicans’ court,” Jeffries said Monday.

___

Associated Press writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens new bridge between Detroit and Canada

Published

40 minutes ago

February 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump threatens new bridge between Detroit and Canada

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to block the opening of a new Canadian-built bridge across the Detroit River, demanding that Canada turn over at least half of the ownership of the bridge and agree to other unspecified demands in his latest salvo over cross-border trade issues.

“We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset,” Trump said in a lengthy social media post, complaining that the United States would get nothing from the bridge and that Canada did not use U.S. steel to built it.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, named after a Canadian hockey star who played for the Detroit Red Wings for 25 seasons, had been expected to open in early 2026, according to information on the project’s website. The project was negotiated by former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — a Republican — and paid for by the Canadian government to help ease congestion over the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor tunnel. Work has been underway since 2018.

It’s unclear how Trump would seek to block the bridge from being opened, and the White House did not immediately return a request for comment on more details. The Canadian Embassy in Washington also did not immediately return a request for comment.

Trump’s threat comes as the relationship between the U.S. and Canada increasingly sours during the U.S. president’s second term. The United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review this year, and Trump has been taking a hard-line position ahead of those talks, including by issuing new tariff threats.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has spoken out on the world stage against economic coercion by the United States.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said the Canadian-funded project is a “huge boon” to her state and its economic future. “You’ll be able to move cargo from Montreal to Miami without ever stopping at a street light,” Slotkin told The Associated Press.

“So to shoot yourself in the foot and threaten the Gordie Howe Bridge means that this guy has completely lost the plot on what’s good for us versus just what’s spite against the Canadians,” Slotkin said.

Michigan, a swing state that Trump carried in both 2016 and 2024, has so far largely avoided the brunt of his second-term crackdown, which has targeted blue states with aggressive immigration raids and cuts to federal funding for major infrastructure projects.

Trump and Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have also maintained an unusually cordial relationship, with the president publicly praising her during an Oval Office appearance last April. The two also shared a hug last year ahead of Trump’s announcement of a new fighter jet mission for an Air National Guard base in Michigan.

While Canada paid for the project, the bridge will be operated under a joint ownership agreement between Michigan and Canada, said Stacey LaRouche, press secretary to Whitmer.

“This is the busiest trade crossing in North America,” LaRouche said, saying the bridge was “good for Michigan workers and it’s good for Michigan’s auto industry” as well as being a good example of bipartisan and international cooperation.

“It’s going to open one way or another, and the governor looks forward to attending the ribbon-cutting,” LaRouche said.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, the Democratic House representative of Detroit, said blocking the bridge would be “crazy” and said Trump’s attacks on Canada weren’t good for business or jobs. “The bridge is going to help Michigan’s economy. There’s so much commerce between Michigan and Canada. They’re one of our biggest partners,” Thanedar said.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Ann Arbor brushed aside the president’s threat, saying she’s looking forward to the bridge’s opening later in the spring. “And I’ll be there,” Dingell said.

“That bridge is the biggest crossing in this country on the northern border. It’s jobs. It’s about protecting our economy. It was built with union jobs on both sides,” said Dingell. “It’s going to open. Canada is our ally.”

___

AP writer Ed White contributed from Detroit.