TRANSCRIPT
A legal showdown is unfolding over the Trump administration's order to freeze federal funds, which officials say is to ensure spending complies with the president's executive orders.
Democratic attorneys general in several states have announced a lawsuit seeking to block the action.
There was little warning, before the latest attempt by Donald Trump to extend his power as president was announced and confirmed in a White House briefing: a plan to pause trillions of dollars in US government funding.
Over 50 minutes, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt faced repeated questions from reporters on the abrupt decision to freeze federal aid.
She says the action is about being what she called "good stewards of tax dollars", which she says the president was elected to do.
"And the reason for this is to ensure that every penny that is going out the door is not conflicting with the executive orders and actions that this president has taken. So what does this pause mean? It means no more funding for illegal DEI programs. It means no more funding for the green new scam that has cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. It means no more funding for transgenderism and wokeness across our federal bureaucracy and agencies. No more funding for Green New Deal social engineering policies. Again, people who are receiving individual assistance, you will continue to receive that."
The order was immediately challenged, with a request for a pause to the order granted by a federal judge.
The action was launched by a coalition of advocacy groups for nonprofits, health care and small businesses who told the judge the funding freeze would be catastrophic.
They argued a freeze on federal funding would compromise the delivery of vital services to voters and community, covering childcare, homelessness, services for LGBTIQ+ people, and more.
Six Democratic-led states - including New York, California, and Massachusetts - have announced they are launching legal action seeking a permanent block to the President's plan.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called Mr Trump's plan to freeze funds illegal and dangerous.
"His actions are arbitrary and capricious. His actions violate the Constitution, the separation of powers. He fails to respect a co-equal branch of government, he exceeded his authority. It's important that individuals understand that what we are doing is protecting democracy and the rule of law. And we, again, have all indicated that we are prepared to work with this administration. But when it comes to a clear violation of the law, we will not be silent. We will not sit idly by and allow individuals to trespass on the rights of Americans."
The memo outlining the freeze - from the US Office of Management and Budget - states it could affect everything from aid to nonprofits, universities, small business loans and state and local government grants.
With 3 trillion US dollars spent in 2024 on federal assistance programs, the ripple effect of a freeze on funding could be wide-reaching.
Despite the memo stating the freeze would not affect Medicare or Social Security benefits; at least 20 states say they have already been blocked from the payment system for Medicaid, a public health insurance program for low-income people.
California Attorney General Rob Banta says there is still widespread confusion over the scope of Mr Trump's plan - and what it will mean for the most vulnerable in the community.
"We will not stand by while the President attempts to disrupt vital programs that feed our kids, provide medical care to our families, and support housing in our communities. We won't stand by while the president breaks the law and oversteps his authority as outlined in our Constitution, a Constitution he swore an oath to uphold just one week ago. It shouldn't be too much to ask that the president follow the law and abide by the federal government's commitments."
The move to withhold federal funding has been questioned more broadly - including by those asking if the President has the unilateral power to deliver on such an action.
The issue has come up before - including during the Nixon administration ((1969 - 1974)), which led to legal limits being established.
The Impoundment Control Act outlines the guardrails on the president’s powers to cut funding approved by Congress.
Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck says the plan for a funding freeze is a further example of how Donald Trump is testing the limits of the checks and balances on the power of the president.
"That's not his call. Under the Constitution, the way the appropriations power works is it belongs to Congress, not the president. Even if folks were sympathetic in the abstract to the idea that maybe there are a few programs where it's not quite fair to make the president have to spend money he’s opposed to spending, you know, this is not a scalpel. This is a nuclear-tipped broad sword. And to allow this kind of program to go forward would not just have immediate, harsh, deleterious effects on all kinds of segments of society, it would really pretty radically reorient the separation of powers in this country away from the legislature and toward the executive."
