Thawing Out Details on the Trump Funding Freeze
The funniest jokes are obviously the ones you have to explain. I mean that is what I tell myself when no one laughs at my attempts at humor. See—when I said the turtle, it obviously was referencing the 1950’s era misconceptions and…never mind you don’t get it… Those kinds of jokes, super funny right? Some say that the same can be said about a presidency that issues an order then has to clarify over and over again what they were trying to do.
On the heels of the recent effort to cut funding for healthcare providers suspected of gender affirming care, the administration via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo to pause federal grants funding.
Critics say this isn’t good, isn’t wise, and is a dangerous and calculated move that disproportionately harms marginalized communities—particularly Black and brown, low-income, and the LGBTQ+ community. These actions can slow access to critical programs that provide assistance with housing, food, and safety.
So, a quick rundown before going any further. What is the OMB and why do we even care? The OMB is the office that handles the money that is being paid out. They quite literally handle the management of the budget…aka the name Office of Management and Budget. A common thought or question is how does this really work though? Don’t the people already have the money? The short answer to that question is the lawyerly, it depends, and the more frank—not quite.
I personally had experience managing a federal grant when I was executive director for the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights. Often, when you have a federal grant, they don’t just hand you a check or a pot of cash. You have to work for it. Once you have an agreement in place, you can log in on a secure portal and “draw down” funds. This action then initiates the payment for the previously agreed amount that you put in the request to draw down.Confusing, I know.
More confusing though is the uncertainty that comes alongside this order and who it can impact the most. Millions of people who depend on rental assistance, housing vouchers, and SNAP (food stamps) could face increased food insecurity and potential eviction. Many low-income and LGBTQ+ individuals, already facing higher rates of poverty, are now at even greater risk of homelessness.
Grants also are vital in keeping shelters open for survivors of domestic violence and LGBTQ+ youth facing family rejection. The funding freeze means shelters may shut down or turn people away, leaving victims with nowhere to go and increasing the likelihood of returning to unsafe environments. On top of that, Kentucky’s beleaguered foster care system that is currently overrepresented with LGBTQ+ youth are now at risk of losing key operational funding.
Those who already feel the pressures of family and society and the LGBTQ+ youth, who already face alarmingly high rates of suicide, this freeze can also impact federally funded crisis hotlines for support. With the freeze, essential helplines like the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and LGBTQ+ specific hotlines face possible funding gaps, cutting off life-saving services when they are needed most.
Lastly, this freeze impacts the operation of Medicaid portals, potentially delaying coverage enrollment for millions of low-income individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities. Any disruption in Medicaid access disproportionately harms Black and brown communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those living in poverty.
But can they even do this? As with many of the recent actions from Washington this too carries a question of constitutionality. Attorneys General in more than twenty-two states (and DC) have already filed suit to challenge the order. In Kentucky, the Attorney General did not join this suit aimingto protect funding and instead penned a letter to Costo regarding their recent decision to not end their DEI programs.
Legal experts and the good Attorneys General, are pointing out the apparent separation of powers issue under the U.S. Constitution. Yeah, that old thing.
The Constitution’s Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) explicitly states that
“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This means that once Congress approves funding, the President must ensure its disbursement. By instructing the OMB to halt funds, the Trump administration may be violating the separation of powers and defying congressional authority. Realizing this, a federal judge has temporarily blocked this order from going into effect.
Okay, enough legal stuff. The OMB tried to clarify over and over the day after the order to clarify who wasn’t part of the impacted group in the freeze. Just like a bad joke, they had to keep explaining and explaining often times confusing even more people. Maybe that is part of it, the confusion.
Building on the confusion, the Trump White House issued a rescission of the memo. This announcement was received with excitement, to quickly be clarified (one of those again) by the White House that the memo is rescinded, but not the freeze. What?
Confusion on the impact of a potential rule can do more damage than the rule itself. Groups may slow their services preemptively to circumvent inevitable cuts later. These actions have a lasting chilling effect on providing services to the most vulnerable.