5 ms·

Freeze on grant funding temporarily halted by federal judge

49 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

xracy 2y ago
I don't see a strategy here other than just blowing things up... And that's concerning me. Why are they doing so much self-destructive shit.
- sircastor 2y ago
  I've read some folks saying this is a long game seize power or establish new norms. I would really like it if there were some logic or rationale behind it. But I don't see any reasoning that's longer than "It's giving money to ______"
  - denkmoon 2y ago
    Erode institutions to erode public trust in institutions. You then a) free up budget to spend on your buddies and b) derisk regulation and/or public criticism from these institutions
  - bbwbsb 2y ago
    Fascism's power is situated on lying to a 'chosen majority' and telling them they are special, unique, destined for greatness, etc. (often by simultaneously giving them insecurity - that if they don't take up the mantle of chosen majority they are losers, worthless, no one will love them, they deserve to suffer, etc.) so that you can use them to get rid of opposition, and then split off small groups repeatedly, until finally screwing the chosen majority too over because they no longer have enough power to resist. A critical part of this is controlling information; people need to be convinced not to unite, because if they notice what is happening early on, they can brute force victory through sheer numbers. Another element of that is maintaining/gaining control of institutions with 'true believers' who are willing to commit cruelty to satisfy the party's ambition is a critical part of progressively removing minorities without the chosen majority realizing that they might be next. Additionally, making the situation uncomfortable and scary to get people to voluntary leave whittles down the population of people who might be capable and motivated to resist. And making it seem like they have more power than they do and making it unclear what will cause harm to them can cause people to 'obey in advance', giving up power to the party which they do not have.
    - hedora 2y ago
      Go look at the deferred resignation offer the OPM nust sent to the entire executive branch. Moving forward, reliability and loyalty will be rewarded, not competence or doing your job. Also, a witch hunt is coming. The memo applies to the entire executive branch except the military and immigration enforcement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859552
- TimedToasts 2y ago
  Americans have been voting for significant change since Obama ran on "Hope and Change" and delivered neither. Harris promised Even More Of The Same and people said 'No, but For Real this time.' People. Do. Not. Want. All. This. And they voted for someone, again, who said they'd change things. Let's go.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    All what? Tell me what "people" don't want and I will tell you why people don't know what the heck they are talking about. This site is focused on expertise. Would you want "people" to tell you why you need that helper class? Stuff. Is. Complicated.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Sorry man, democracy and all that.
      - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        let's hope so.
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      The elites running the show failed to either sufficiently explain why the country is doing what it is, or deliver enough bread and circuses to the population for that not to matter. Will they course correct before the system breaks? Only time will tell.
      - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        That's 100% accurate.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    You're 100% correct. People tried the nice way with Obama and now they're choosing the hard way with Trump. We are over-the-moon happy with these actions.
neonate 2y ago
https://archive.ph/9m3ni https://archive.ph/9m3ni
Apreche 2y ago
It’s not just about whether these executive orders stick. It’s about draining the energy and resources of good people by forcing us to keep fighting all the time. Rope a dope.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Right. The strategy this time around should be universally concerning: our system is built for drawn-out consideration, not handling rapid-fire edicts from an executive who doesn't understand (or doesn't wish to understand) the division of power between branches of government. Trump appears to be signaling that he's going to sign orders and memos until the other branches roll over through attrition. I hope they remember their coextensive powers before that strategy actually works.
  - waveBidder 2y ago
    I'm hoping a result of this shitshow is a curtailing the power of the executive. We've been slow-walking our way towards this by congress abrogating their responsibility under both parties. Probably requires actual restructuring of congressional elections and seniority systems though, which is... well going to be hard.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      I agree completely!
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      It would also require Congress to actually pass more legislation. A lot of the 'ruling by executive order' culture came as a result of the increasing polarisation of the legislature and subsequent lack of compromise.
      - jordanpg 2y ago
        This. The left needs to admit that they are guilty of this too and exercise forbearance to stop this cycle if they lucky enough to get the chance.
sircastor 2y ago
My wife walked into my office about an hour ago with a message from her school related to grants being halted, and how they're going to try to respond. It wasn't anything that directly affected her studies, but there are undoubtedly fallout and cascading effects that this could exercise on schools. If nothing else, a lot of this mad-cap swinging of the executive-order hammer has exposed how much of our society depends on the existing provided infrastructure.
- disqard 2y ago
  A lot of our society depends on good-faith participation and restraint when wielding power.
tart-lemonade 2y ago
At this point I have to wonder if judicial intervention will have any effect; a court ruling only matters if the administration decides to obey it. There's a lot of frozen funds which legally cannot be frozen due to them either not being subject to executive control (e.g. Medicaid funds[0]) or because there are contractual obligations for dispersal (e.g. many infrastructure projects), so it seems unlikely that a little thing like the law is going to make a difference here. As someone in higher ed, this all worries me greatly. My position may not be federally funded, but if layoffs occur to balance the budget, I'm relatively low on the seniority ladder. [0]: https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-freezes-federal-grants-healthcare-medicaid-providers/738449/ https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-freezes-federal-gr...
- jrs235 2y ago
  He'll just fire any civil servants that follow through and obey court orders that he disagrees with. And as president he has immunity, while they're going to have to lawyer up to try to sort it all out. So as a civil servant employee at what point do you just put your head down and do what your direct boss says?
legitster 2y ago
My assumption is that it's within the administration's rights to cancel the funding, but it's like that scene in The Office where Michael tries to "declare bankruptcy" by just saying the words out loud. The actual executive order is laughably vague, it couldn't be less serious if it was written in crayon. And their additional guidance was not much better: >Q: Is this a freeze on all Federal financial assistance? A: No, the pause does not apply across-the-board. It is expressly limited to programs, projects, and activities implicated by the President’s Executive Orders, such as ending DEI, the green new deal, and funding nongovernmental organizations that undermine the national interest. This is hilariously daft. The administration is not aware that the "green new deal" included things like highway funding and buying school buses. Does DEI include reduced lunch programs? If you are currently getting a grant to upgrade metering in your city, are you supposed to stop or not? It's a drunk stepdad's shopping list. I suspect the court is actually going to make the administration do a bit of reading and have to identify each grant that they are going to cut.
- rbetts 2y ago
  Why do you assume the executive has this power? The president has an explicit constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. The president has no line item veto power. Maybe this Supreme Court will make up this power in the future. But it doesn’t exist at this moment.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Oh, there's a section in the actual memo that talks about "ending the wokeness agenda". I was going to say it feels like it was written by Trump himself, except far too eloquent. Maybe by Musk, then.
  - honestSysAdmin 2y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/us/embassy-us-flag-blm-gay-pride.html
bloopernova 2y ago
Pausing the flow of so much money, even for a short while, seems like it would be disruptive to the economy. What did the project 2025 people expect was going to happen? The utter indifference to human suffering is very distressing.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > What did the project 2025 people expect was going to happen? Given that one of their goals was "de-emphasizing college education" and encouraging high school graduates to focus on a (Christian, of course) family, and raising children... I don't think they much care.
- IamLoading 2y ago
  watching peoplein r/conservatives jumping happy with this news. I understand there is waste to some degree, but it feels dystopian. https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/1ibznfh/all_federal_grants_paused/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/1ibznfh/all_...
cryptonector 2y ago
In the end there is no way the courts could force the Executive to deficit spend. I'm not sure I want to find out which way that will go right now -and I make no predictions whatsoever-, but it has got to be the case that in extremis the Executive can simply cut spending until the deficit is reduced to zero. Imagine that the deficit was 100% and inflation were raging at Argentine levels like 100% a year: an American Milei (which Trump is not far from being) would absolutely get away with cutting spending to the bone and telling the Congress and the courts to go pound sand. My advice is to not push too hard on this at this time. The only real check on Trump's power right now will be the House impeaching, and that can only happen if House Republicans get angry with him, and it should be clear that cutting spending is making them angry before the courts start goading Trump into doing something that might trigger impeachment. I don't think people realize that the right-ward movement in the electorate is accelerating since the election, and doing things that further accelerate that before the midterms isn't going to help Trump's opponents in either party.
- pchristensen 2y ago
  By that theory, if the President can choose not to spend money budgeted and authorized by Congress, they have an effective veto power over any legislation. Don't like trains? Defund Amtrak. Don't like highways? Defund DOT. Peace lover? Zero out the DoD. This is why the Supreme Court is here - to adjudicate what is legal and to reconcile different responsibilities and theories. Regardless of what is "best for the country", the law says one thing and the President is doing something else.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    First of all see the "impoundment power" and the Impoundment Control Act. It's not clear what the Constitution says on this matter, nor have the courts pronounced themselves on this. In the 90s the SCOTUS said that Congress could not give the President an explicit line item veto power, but impoundment is not the same thing. Second, in extremis, it has got to be the case that the President can refuse to spend allocated moneys. The President must never be able to spend unallocated funds, but Congress can't make money appear out of nowhere. In extremis the dollar could stop being the world's reserve currency, and in extremis the U.S. could end up in a situation like Argentina's. Obviously there has to be a limit. I'm not saying we're there. But I am saying that the courts should thing ten times before saying that the President cannot impound spending. Besides, consider all the constitutional provisions that we no longer adhere to. For example the Constitution says that Congress must set the value of the currency, but Congress does no such thing. For another the Constitution says that all debt issuance must be approved by Congress, but Congress merely sets a ceiling for debt issuance rather than approving each issuance. Some things -not many- the Constitution got wrong in ways that nobody even bothered to amend nor ever will.
EMIRELADERO 2y ago
I hate it when articles don't link to the actual legal source, so here it goes. The case in question: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69583571/national-council-of-nonprofits-v-office-of-management-and-budget/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69583571/national-counc...
johnea 2y ago
That didn't take too long. Expect the current administration to spend more time in court than any other. Of course, this won't be anything new for Donald...
mannyv 2y ago
It'll be interesting to see if the court has the authority to make this ruling. I assume the administration will push this to the Supremes. A pause is not a stop. What people are worried about is that their program is going to be cut after the review. It's better to stop the review now before it starts by making a whole bunch of "the sky is falling" claims. The sky might be falling, but it doesn't hurt to panic. If you look at the spreadsheet (which is hard, because it's a PDF), you'll see that each agency needs to list the political overseer so the administration can, if they want, find out how to kill it. As far as I know there's never been a list like this, ever. I wish it was a real spreadsheet because the objective text is clipped. https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_for_federal_financial_assistance_program_analysis_in_support_of_m-25-13.pdf https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_f...
- hedora 2y ago
  I’m more worried about the elimination of separation of powers that this executive order will imply if upheld. Congress writes laws and sets the budget. Trump has said he’s not going to enforce laws he doesn’t like and will use emergency declarations to enforce rules he made up. Now he’s saying he’s going to ignore the budget congress passed. Also, if the Supreme Court does uphold it, then we’ll know for sure that they’re ceding power to Trump, so he’ll have cemented in his dictatorship in under two weeks. Hitler took 53 days.
  - tart-lemonade 2y ago
    To be fair, Trump is far from the first to practice selective enforcement. As long as cannabis remains schedule 1, the DEA could raid every dispensary and farm in states that have "legalized" it, the only thing stopping them is our presidents turning a blind eye. All those "10 ridiculous laws still on the books" listicles operate on the same principle: nobody cares to enforce them, and since nobody is enforcing them, there isn't enough political will to repeal them, either. Which is to say SCOTUS will absolutely approve of Trump refusing to enforce laws he dislikes, for better and for worse. The emergency declarations to enforce unconstitutional rules he just imagined like an LLM hallucination will likely be far worse, and even if SCOTUS says no, I doubt he will obey them (SCOTUS has no enforcement powers, after all).
honestSysAdmin 2y ago
I have been consulting with startups in the SF Bay Area, many of them are in their B-series and C-series funding rounds ; offices in SF skyscrapers and general SV / San Jose area. In the C-series I have been involved in long enough, I can count the closet Trump supporters on more than one hand. At the B-series companies, it's more than just one person. Personally, I'm not among them, but I don't lean into "Orange Man is Hitler" either. I grew up in a place where I know what real extremists do actually look like. Treating those with different opinions, is brewing the "fascism" we are hearing so much about but aren't going to see, not in this presidential term at least. We need to try actually talking to people more. But these people are never going to admit they are Trump supporters. If you think you are someone that could they should believe they could have a rational conversation with them, ask yourself if you still believe the "fine people" hoax, and check what Snopes (yes, Snopes) has to say about that hoax before replying here.
basementcat 2y ago
It appears that PEPFAR data systems are still down. Is the administration defying the court order or is there another reason for the outage? https://data.pepfar.gov/ https://data.pepfar.gov/ https://www.datim.org/ https://www.datim.org/
- basementcat 2y ago
  I did some digging and it appears the problem is the following: 1. There was a "STOP WORK" memo issued by the administration that caused all this chaos. 2. Since the court injunction a "resume work" memo has not been issued so PEPFAR activity has been at a standstill. There is a risk that decades of work fighting the AIDS epidemic has gone to waste.
dekhn 2y ago
Rescinded.

49 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

I don't see a strategy here other than just blowing things up... And that's concerning me. Why are they doing so much self-destructive shit.

sircastor 2y ago
I've read some folks saying this is a long game seize power or establish new norms. I would really like it if there were some logic or rationale behind it. But I don't see any reasoning that's longer than "It's giving money to ______"
- denkmoon 2y ago
  Erode institutions to erode public trust in institutions. You then a) free up budget to spend on your buddies and b) derisk regulation and/or public criticism from these institutions
- bbwbsb 2y ago
  Fascism's power is situated on lying to a 'chosen majority' and telling them they are special, unique, destined for greatness, etc. (often by simultaneously giving them insecurity - that if they don't take up the mantle of chosen majority they are losers, worthless, no one will love them, they deserve to suffer, etc.) so that you can use them to get rid of opposition, and then split off small groups repeatedly, until finally screwing the chosen majority too over because they no longer have enough power to resist. A critical part of this is controlling information; people need to be convinced not to unite, because if they notice what is happening early on, they can brute force victory through sheer numbers. Another element of that is maintaining/gaining control of institutions with 'true believers' who are willing to commit cruelty to satisfy the party's ambition is a critical part of progressively removing minorities without the chosen majority realizing that they might be next. Additionally, making the situation uncomfortable and scary to get people to voluntary leave whittles down the population of people who might be capable and motivated to resist. And making it seem like they have more power than they do and making it unclear what will cause harm to them can cause people to 'obey in advance', giving up power to the party which they do not have.
  - hedora 2y ago
    Go look at the deferred resignation offer the OPM nust sent to the entire executive branch. Moving forward, reliability and loyalty will be rewarded, not competence or doing your job. Also, a witch hunt is coming. The memo applies to the entire executive branch except the military and immigration enforcement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859552
TimedToasts 2y ago
Americans have been voting for significant change since Obama ran on "Hope and Change" and delivered neither. Harris promised Even More Of The Same and people said 'No, but For Real this time.' People. Do. Not. Want. All. This. And they voted for someone, again, who said they'd change things. Let's go.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  All what? Tell me what "people" don't want and I will tell you why people don't know what the heck they are talking about. This site is focused on expertise. Would you want "people" to tell you why you need that helper class? Stuff. Is. Complicated.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Sorry man, democracy and all that.
    - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
      let's hope so.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    The elites running the show failed to either sufficiently explain why the country is doing what it is, or deliver enough bread and circuses to the population for that not to matter. Will they course correct before the system breaks? Only time will tell.
    - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
      That's 100% accurate.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  You're 100% correct. People tried the nice way with Obama and now they're choosing the hard way with Trump. We are over-the-moon happy with these actions.

neonate 2y ago

https://archive.ph/9m3ni https://archive.ph/9m3ni

Apreche 2y ago

It’s not just about whether these executive orders stick. It’s about draining the energy and resources of good people by forcing us to keep fighting all the time. Rope a dope.

woodruffw 2y ago
Right. The strategy this time around should be universally concerning: our system is built for drawn-out consideration, not handling rapid-fire edicts from an executive who doesn't understand (or doesn't wish to understand) the division of power between branches of government. Trump appears to be signaling that he's going to sign orders and memos until the other branches roll over through attrition. I hope they remember their coextensive powers before that strategy actually works.
- waveBidder 2y ago
  I'm hoping a result of this shitshow is a curtailing the power of the executive. We've been slow-walking our way towards this by congress abrogating their responsibility under both parties. Probably requires actual restructuring of congressional elections and seniority systems though, which is... well going to be hard.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    I agree completely!
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    It would also require Congress to actually pass more legislation. A lot of the 'ruling by executive order' culture came as a result of the increasing polarisation of the legislature and subsequent lack of compromise.
    - jordanpg 2y ago
      This. The left needs to admit that they are guilty of this too and exercise forbearance to stop this cycle if they lucky enough to get the chance.

sircastor 2y ago

My wife walked into my office about an hour ago with a message from her school related to grants being halted, and how they're going to try to respond. It wasn't anything that directly affected her studies, but there are undoubtedly fallout and cascading effects that this could exercise on schools. If nothing else, a lot of this mad-cap swinging of the executive-order hammer has exposed how much of our society depends on the existing provided infrastructure.

disqard 2y ago
A lot of our society depends on good-faith participation and restraint when wielding power.

tart-lemonade 2y ago

At this point I have to wonder if judicial intervention will have any effect; a court ruling only matters if the administration decides to obey it. There's a lot of frozen funds which legally cannot be frozen due to them either not being subject to executive control (e.g. Medicaid funds[0]) or because there are contractual obligations for dispersal (e.g. many infrastructure projects), so it seems unlikely that a little thing like the law is going to make a difference here. As someone in higher ed, this all worries me greatly. My position may not be federally funded, but if layoffs occur to balance the budget, I'm relatively low on the seniority ladder. [0]: https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-freezes-federal-grants-healthcare-medicaid-providers/738449/ https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-freezes-federal-gr...

jrs235 2y ago
He'll just fire any civil servants that follow through and obey court orders that he disagrees with. And as president he has immunity, while they're going to have to lawyer up to try to sort it all out. So as a civil servant employee at what point do you just put your head down and do what your direct boss says?

legitster 2y ago

My assumption is that it's within the administration's rights to cancel the funding, but it's like that scene in The Office where Michael tries to "declare bankruptcy" by just saying the words out loud. The actual executive order is laughably vague, it couldn't be less serious if it was written in crayon. And their additional guidance was not much better: >Q: Is this a freeze on all Federal financial assistance? A: No, the pause does not apply across-the-board. It is expressly limited to programs, projects, and activities implicated by the President’s Executive Orders, such as ending DEI, the green new deal, and funding nongovernmental organizations that undermine the national interest. This is hilariously daft. The administration is not aware that the "green new deal" included things like highway funding and buying school buses. Does DEI include reduced lunch programs? If you are currently getting a grant to upgrade metering in your city, are you supposed to stop or not? It's a drunk stepdad's shopping list. I suspect the court is actually going to make the administration do a bit of reading and have to identify each grant that they are going to cut.

rbetts 2y ago
Why do you assume the executive has this power? The president has an explicit constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. The president has no line item veto power. Maybe this Supreme Court will make up this power in the future. But it doesn’t exist at this moment.
FireBeyond 2y ago
Oh, there's a section in the actual memo that talks about "ending the wokeness agenda". I was going to say it feels like it was written by Trump himself, except far too eloquent. Maybe by Musk, then.
- honestSysAdmin 2y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/us/embassy-us-flag-blm-gay-pride.html

bloopernova 2y ago

Pausing the flow of so much money, even for a short while, seems like it would be disruptive to the economy. What did the project 2025 people expect was going to happen? The utter indifference to human suffering is very distressing.

FireBeyond 2y ago
> What did the project 2025 people expect was going to happen? Given that one of their goals was "de-emphasizing college education" and encouraging high school graduates to focus on a (Christian, of course) family, and raising children... I don't think they much care.
IamLoading 2y ago
watching peoplein r/conservatives jumping happy with this news. I understand there is waste to some degree, but it feels dystopian. https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/1ibznfh/all_federal_grants_paused/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/1ibznfh/all_...

cryptonector 2y ago

In the end there is no way the courts could force the Executive to deficit spend. I'm not sure I want to find out which way that will go right now -and I make no predictions whatsoever-, but it has got to be the case that in extremis the Executive can simply cut spending until the deficit is reduced to zero. Imagine that the deficit was 100% and inflation were raging at Argentine levels like 100% a year: an American Milei (which Trump is not far from being) would absolutely get away with cutting spending to the bone and telling the Congress and the courts to go pound sand. My advice is to not push too hard on this at this time. The only real check on Trump's power right now will be the House impeaching, and that can only happen if House Republicans get angry with him, and it should be clear that cutting spending is making them angry before the courts start goading Trump into doing something that might trigger impeachment. I don't think people realize that the right-ward movement in the electorate is accelerating since the election, and doing things that further accelerate that before the midterms isn't going to help Trump's opponents in either party.

pchristensen 2y ago
By that theory, if the President can choose not to spend money budgeted and authorized by Congress, they have an effective veto power over any legislation. Don't like trains? Defund Amtrak. Don't like highways? Defund DOT. Peace lover? Zero out the DoD. This is why the Supreme Court is here - to adjudicate what is legal and to reconcile different responsibilities and theories. Regardless of what is "best for the country", the law says one thing and the President is doing something else.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  First of all see the "impoundment power" and the Impoundment Control Act. It's not clear what the Constitution says on this matter, nor have the courts pronounced themselves on this. In the 90s the SCOTUS said that Congress could not give the President an explicit line item veto power, but impoundment is not the same thing. Second, in extremis, it has got to be the case that the President can refuse to spend allocated moneys. The President must never be able to spend unallocated funds, but Congress can't make money appear out of nowhere. In extremis the dollar could stop being the world's reserve currency, and in extremis the U.S. could end up in a situation like Argentina's. Obviously there has to be a limit. I'm not saying we're there. But I am saying that the courts should thing ten times before saying that the President cannot impound spending. Besides, consider all the constitutional provisions that we no longer adhere to. For example the Constitution says that Congress must set the value of the currency, but Congress does no such thing. For another the Constitution says that all debt issuance must be approved by Congress, but Congress merely sets a ceiling for debt issuance rather than approving each issuance. Some things -not many- the Constitution got wrong in ways that nobody even bothered to amend nor ever will.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

I hate it when articles don't link to the actual legal source, so here it goes. The case in question: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69583571/national-council-of-nonprofits-v-office-of-management-and-budget/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69583571/national-counc...

johnea 2y ago

That didn't take too long. Expect the current administration to spend more time in court than any other. Of course, this won't be anything new for Donald...

mannyv 2y ago

It'll be interesting to see if the court has the authority to make this ruling. I assume the administration will push this to the Supremes. A pause is not a stop. What people are worried about is that their program is going to be cut after the review. It's better to stop the review now before it starts by making a whole bunch of "the sky is falling" claims. The sky might be falling, but it doesn't hurt to panic. If you look at the spreadsheet (which is hard, because it's a PDF), you'll see that each agency needs to list the political overseer so the administration can, if they want, find out how to kill it. As far as I know there's never been a list like this, ever. I wish it was a real spreadsheet because the objective text is clipped. https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_for_federal_financial_assistance_program_analysis_in_support_of_m-25-13.pdf https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_f...

hedora 2y ago
I’m more worried about the elimination of separation of powers that this executive order will imply if upheld. Congress writes laws and sets the budget. Trump has said he’s not going to enforce laws he doesn’t like and will use emergency declarations to enforce rules he made up. Now he’s saying he’s going to ignore the budget congress passed. Also, if the Supreme Court does uphold it, then we’ll know for sure that they’re ceding power to Trump, so he’ll have cemented in his dictatorship in under two weeks. Hitler took 53 days.
- tart-lemonade 2y ago
  To be fair, Trump is far from the first to practice selective enforcement. As long as cannabis remains schedule 1, the DEA could raid every dispensary and farm in states that have "legalized" it, the only thing stopping them is our presidents turning a blind eye. All those "10 ridiculous laws still on the books" listicles operate on the same principle: nobody cares to enforce them, and since nobody is enforcing them, there isn't enough political will to repeal them, either. Which is to say SCOTUS will absolutely approve of Trump refusing to enforce laws he dislikes, for better and for worse. The emergency declarations to enforce unconstitutional rules he just imagined like an LLM hallucination will likely be far worse, and even if SCOTUS says no, I doubt he will obey them (SCOTUS has no enforcement powers, after all).

honestSysAdmin 2y ago

I have been consulting with startups in the SF Bay Area, many of them are in their B-series and C-series funding rounds ; offices in SF skyscrapers and general SV / San Jose area. In the C-series I have been involved in long enough, I can count the closet Trump supporters on more than one hand. At the B-series companies, it's more than just one person. Personally, I'm not among them, but I don't lean into "Orange Man is Hitler" either. I grew up in a place where I know what real extremists do actually look like. Treating those with different opinions, is brewing the "fascism" we are hearing so much about but aren't going to see, not in this presidential term at least. We need to try actually talking to people more. But these people are never going to admit they are Trump supporters. If you think you are someone that could they should believe they could have a rational conversation with them, ask yourself if you still believe the "fine people" hoax, and check what Snopes (yes, Snopes) has to say about that hoax before replying here.

basementcat 2y ago

It appears that PEPFAR data systems are still down. Is the administration defying the court order or is there another reason for the outage? https://data.pepfar.gov/ https://data.pepfar.gov/ https://www.datim.org/ https://www.datim.org/

basementcat 2y ago
I did some digging and it appears the problem is the following: 1. There was a "STOP WORK" memo issued by the administration that caused all this chaos. 2. Since the court injunction a "resume work" memo has not been issued so PEPFAR activity has been at a standstill. There is a risk that decades of work fighting the AIDS epidemic has gone to waste.

dekhn 2y ago

Rescinded.