This is only to comply with the judge's ruling until Monday.
President Donald Trump did not rescind the funding freeze; instead, a federal judge issued a temporary block on the order. On January 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan blocked Trump's directive to freeze federal grants and loans, which was set to take effect at 5 p.m. EST that day. This judicial intervention came in response to legal challenges arguing that the freeze was unlawful, capricious, and potentially unconstitutional, given that Congress had already appropriated the funds in question.
Legal Challenges: Various groups, including nonprofits and states' attorneys general, filed lawsuits against the administration, claiming the freeze was an illegal attempt to control spending without Congressional approval. These lawsuits highlighted the potential harm to numerous programs, from education to healthcare, which rely on federal funding.📷📷📷
Constitutional Concerns: Critics argued that this action by the Trump administration might violate the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress control over federal spending. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, passed after President Nixon's similar actions, further restricts the president from unilaterally withholding funds Congress has appropriated.📷
Public and Political Reaction: There was significant confusion and backlash from both the public and political figures. Democratic leaders and state officials condemned the move, describing it as an overreach of executive power. The pause was seen as causing chaos in federal aid programs, affecting everything from Medicaid payments to educational grants.📷📷
Judicial Stay: The judge's decision to stay the order was to preserve the status quo while further legal arguments could be heard. This pause on the freeze was set to last at least until a hearing scheduled for the following Monday afternoon, giving both sides time to argue their case in court.📷📷
In summary, Trump did not rescind the funding freeze himself; it was paused by judicial action due to legal challenges, public outcry, and constitutional concerns.
But in the meantime, Trump also fired a bunch of people. I wonder which of those who were let go had signing authority. And I'm sure that those remaining have gotten clear signals of the president's direction.
I don’t know. At this neck breaking habbenings, It could be just enough. Definitely to set measures in place and get an honest election system to keep’em coming, as far as good folks in government.
This is only to comply with the judge's ruling until Monday.
President Donald Trump did not rescind the funding freeze; instead, a federal judge issued a temporary block on the order. On January 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan blocked Trump's directive to freeze federal grants and loans, which was set to take effect at 5 p.m. EST that day. This judicial intervention came in response to legal challenges arguing that the freeze was unlawful, capricious, and potentially unconstitutional, given that Congress had already appropriated the funds in question.
Legal Challenges: Various groups, including nonprofits and states' attorneys general, filed lawsuits against the administration, claiming the freeze was an illegal attempt to control spending without Congressional approval. These lawsuits highlighted the potential harm to numerous programs, from education to healthcare, which rely on federal funding.📷📷📷
Constitutional Concerns: Critics argued that this action by the Trump administration might violate the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress control over federal spending. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, passed after President Nixon's similar actions, further restricts the president from unilaterally withholding funds Congress has appropriated.📷
Public and Political Reaction: There was significant confusion and backlash from both the public and political figures. Democratic leaders and state officials condemned the move, describing it as an overreach of executive power. The pause was seen as causing chaos in federal aid programs, affecting everything from Medicaid payments to educational grants.📷📷
Judicial Stay: The judge's decision to stay the order was to preserve the status quo while further legal arguments could be heard. This pause on the freeze was set to last at least until a hearing scheduled for the following Monday afternoon, giving both sides time to argue their case in court.📷📷
In summary, Trump did not rescind the funding freeze himself; it was paused by judicial action due to legal challenges, public outcry, and constitutional concerns.
https://x.com/gettingtrumpnow/status/1884666768506962237
This context is why I love GAW!!!
Yup. This is what is missing on Twitter.
People are going crazy but they do not know this is a legal ruling. Out of context. Libs are trying to say Trump is two-faced.
We all know the jig
Well, technically it’s still frozen, pending the legal case, so still winning.
But in the meantime, Trump also fired a bunch of people. I wonder which of those who were let go had signing authority. And I'm sure that those remaining have gotten clear signals of the president's direction.
How is a Judges opinion on a matter outweighing the President? This shit has to stop.
This one is actually correct
Power of the purse is a legislative tool
Executive branch may have stepped in
Judicial branch exists to be the check
Sounds like Trump would have to lobby congress to pass a bill authorizing the spending freeze, hope he has the votes and does it.
4 years aint gonna be enough time to clean this CORRUPT shit ridden fuckin DEMORAT/RHINO cesspool in our Govt .
I don’t know. At this neck breaking habbenings, It could be just enough. Definitely to set measures in place and get an honest election system to keep’em coming, as far as good folks in government.
Is there something about this judge, who thinks he outranks POTUS, we should know??
Super ultra liberal Obama appointee IIRC
Whoever turned off the web sites & whoever gave the order to shut them off should be fired immediately