Acting FBI Director Pushes Back on Trump Attempt to Wrongfully Fire FBI Agents Who Worked J6 Cases: [acting FBI director Brian Driscoll on Friday refuses justice department order that he assist in the firings of Agents involved in January 6 Riot cases, pushing back so forcefully that some FBI officials feared he would be dismissed]
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 2, 2025
NBC News reported that a "Senior FBI Official Forcefully Resisted Trump Administration Firings." This is an important development in the effort to combat lawlessness and abuse of power a Trump administration intent on extracting revenge against FBI agents who protected the American people and American democracy by working on January 6 cases.
This video reviews the new reporting and the implications of FBI leadership willing to resist presidential lawlessness.
Transcript
So friends how's this for a headline
senior FBI official forcefully resisted
Trump Administration
firings that's a headline so nice I'm
going to read it twice senior FBI
official forcefully resisted Trump
Administration
firings Points of Light my friends
Points of
Light let's talk about that because
Justice
[Music]
matters hey all Glen kirschner here so
friends this particular corruption and
abusive Power by Donald Trump is pretty
easy to understand stick with me here
thousands of FBI agents investigated the
crimes that Donald Trump's angry mob
committed at the US capital on January
6th crimes we saw with our own
eyes those FBI agents those men and
women did the hard honest ethical
honorable work of protecting we the
people and protecting American
democracy and as than thanks for their
service Donald Trump is seeking revenge
against them trying to wrongfully and
unlawfully fire
them I stand with the men and women of
the FBI and I strongly suspect you do
too let's start with the new reporting
This from NBC news that headline one
more time senior FBI official forcefully
resisted Trump Administration
firings and that article begins acting
FBI director Brian Driscoll on Friday
refused a justice department order that
he assist in the firings of Agents
involved in January 6 Riot cases pushing
back so forcefully that some FBI
officials feared he would be dismissed
multiple current and former FBI
officials told NBC News the justice
department Department ultimately did not
dismiss Driscoll the head of the
bureau's Newark field office who is
temporarily serving as its acting
director that's right friends the guy
who just forcefully resisted Trump is
actually Donald Trump's acting FBI
director my editorial
Edition the article continues the Senate
is currently considering whether cash
Patel Trump's pick for FBI director
should be confirmed a longtime critic of
the bureau's investigations of trump and
January 6th rioter Patel promised
Senators at his confirmation hearing
that no FBI officials would be
retaliated against quote all FBI
employees will be protected against
political retribution Patel said under
oath on Thursday and just over 24 hours
later Driscoll notified the FBI
Workforce that he had been ordered to
remove eight senior FBI Executives by
Emil B the acting Deputy attorney
general and Trump's former personal
defense
lawyer Amil B Trump's former criminal
defense attorney and one of Trump's
current henchmen who is apparently all
too willing to carry out Donald Trump's
improper directives to wrongfully
terminate FBI
officials my editorial addition the
article
continues Driscoll also said he had been
told to turn over the names of every FBI
employee involved in investigating
January 6
riers Driscoll stated that the eight
Executives had been been forced out but
did not say whether he would turn over
the broader list of January 6 related
FBI investigators a list that he noted
encompasses thousands of FBI employees
including him Driscoll
himself a former member of the FBI's
Elite hostage Rescue Team Driscoll
promised agents that he would follow the
law and existing FBI policies
and if he does he will continue to
resist to push back to refuse to carry
out Donald Trump and Emil
B's unlawful commands to terminate
people for doing their job investigating
crime protecting the American people
again yes my editorial Edition this
quote from Driscoll quote as we've said
since the moment we agreed to take on on
these roles we are going to follow the
law follow FBI policy and do what's in
the best interest of the workforce and
the American people always he wrote and
friends this next passage may actually
be the most
important in a message that circulated
widely among Bureau Personnel an FBI
agents summarized what happened as quote
bottom line doj came over and wanted to
fire a bunch of j6 Agents Driscoll is an
absolute stud held his ground and told
White House proxy doj 2 F
off legal experts said that few if any
of the firings carried out so far by the
Trump Administration have been legal
under Civil Service laws because the
employees were not afforded due
process the Trump White House argues
though that the president has the
absolute right to fire anyone he wishes
in the executive
branch the Supreme Court has ruled that
federal employees have a right to aering
before they are disciplined or
terminated Joyce Vance a former US
attorney and NBC News legal contributor
called the firings illegal quote career
federal employees can be fired for
conduct or performance issues not
because they failed to demonstrate
political loyalty to the current
incumbent of the White House said Vance
Trump ignored controlling law and
regulations to do this and unless the
Supreme Court changes their
interpretation any firing of permanent
members of the Civil Service should not
stand of course even even if some of the
employees Sue andwin they said their
Public Service careers have been
irreparably damaged if not
ended so acting FBI director Brian
Driscoll is standing up to Donald
Trump's abuse of
power you know friends as a federal
prosecutor I had the pleasure the
privilege the honor of working with the
FBI and I was uniformly impressed by the
men and women of the
FBI and Donald Trump is trying to
unlawfully fire them for doing their job
a democracy saving job and friends
here's one thing I can tell you about
FBI special agents the ones I know the
ones I worked cases
with they're not going to take kindly to
Donald Trump's corruption and abuse of
power no I don't expect they will just
lay down and take it because to
them like to
us
Justice
matters thank you acting FBI director
Brian Driscoll for being a point of
light amidst the Trump induced
Darkness.
**************************
Senior FBI official forcefully resisted Trump administration firings: Brian Driscoll, the acting FBI director and head of the bureau's Newark field office, pushed back so aggressively that some feared he would be dismissed.
by Ken Dilanian, Tom Winter, Jonathan Dienst and Ryan J. Reilly
NBC News
Feb. 1, 2025, 2:07 PM MST
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... rcna190301
Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll on Friday refused a Justice Department order that he assist in the firing of agents involved in Jan. 6 riot cases, pushing back so forcefully that some FBI officials feared he would be dismissed, multiple current and former FBI officials told NBC News.
The Justice Department ultimately did not dismiss Driscoll, the head of the bureau’s Newark field office who is temporarily serving as its acting director.
The Senate is currently considering whether Kash Patel, President Trump's pick for FBI director, should be confirmed. A longtime critic of the bureau's investigations of Trump and Jan. 6th rioters, Patel promised Senators at his confirmation hearing that no FBI officials would be retaliated against.
“All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution,” Patel said under oath on Thursday.
Just over 24 hours later, Driscoll notified the FBI workforce that he had been ordered to remove eight senior FBI executives by Emil Bove, the acting Deputy Attorney General and Trump’s former personal defense lawyer.
Driscoll also said he had been told to turn over the names of every FBI employee involved in investigating Jan. 6 rioters.
Driscoll stated that the eight executives had been forced out but did not say whether he would turn over the broader list of Jan. 6-related FBI investigators — a list that he noted encompasses thousands of FBI employees, including him.
A former member of the FBI’s elite hostage rescue team, Driscoll promised agents that he would follow the law and existing FBI policies.
"As we’ve said since the moment we agreed to take on these roles, we are going to follow the law, follow FBI policy, and do what’s in the best interest of the workforce and the American people — always,” he wrote.
In a message that circulated widely among bureau personnel, an FBI agent summarized what happened as: “Bottom line — DOJ came over and wanted to fire a bunch of J6 agents. Driscoll is an absolute stud. Held his ground and told WH proxy, DOJ, to F--- Off.”
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”
A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”
Agents who worked on Jan. 6 cases targeted
It’s not known whether anyone other than the eight senior FBI executives have been separated from the bureau. One official familiar with the matter said that top Trump administration officials have made it clear that they want at least some of the FBI agents who pursued Jan. 6 cases to be fired, just as multiple DOJ prosecutors involved with the Jan. 6 prosecutions were fired.
The official said the Trump administration wants this to happen quickly but has been told by FBI officials that misconduct allegations at the bureau involve a formal review process.
The accounts of Driscoll’s actions shed new light on a chaotic series of events over the last 48 hours that began with the news that the Trump administration was seeking to purge the top ranks of the FBI’s career civil servants.
“Late this afternoon, I received a memo from the acting Deputy Attorney General notifying me that eight senior FBI executives are to be terminated by specific dates, unless these employees have retired beforehand," Driscoll wrote. "I have been personally in touch with each of these impacted employees."
He said in the memo that he had also been directed to provide the DOJ by noon on Tuesday a list of all FBI employees involved in Capitol riot cases, and also those involved in a case against a Hamas leader.
No one contacted by NBC News had a sense of the new administration’s interest in the Hamas case, but the focus on Jan. 6 was clear. The Trump administration apparently believes that all of the Jan. 6 cases should not have been brought. [!!!]
Since it was the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history, thousands of FBI personnel were involved, as Driscoll acknowledged in his memo.
“We understand that this request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts,” he wrote. “I am one of those employees, as is acting Deputy Director (Rob) Kissane.”
FBI agents encouraged
FBI agents were heartened by Driscoll's memo, a source said, which many saw as an attempt by Driscoll to make the workforce and the public aware of what he was being asked to do.
“He was trying to do right by the workforce,” one person familiar with the thinking of agents told NBC News. “He’s putting it in writing and naming names.”
A separate DOJ memo obtained by NBC News identified the employees who were forced out.
The list included four top FBI managers: Robert Wells, who oversaw the national security branch; Ryan Young, of the intelligence branch; Robert Nordwall, of criminal and cyber response; Jackie Maguire, of science and technology. All of those people were eligible to retire and many of them did so.
The memo also identified two heads of field offices, Jeffrey Veltri in Miami and David Sundberg in Washington, D.C.
Also on the list was Dena Perkins, an acting section chief in the security division who was involved in a controversial disciplinary proceeding against a conservative FBI agent.
The list did not include Spencer Evans, the special agent in charge in Las Vegas, who sent a message to colleagues on Friday that he was being dismissed by FBI headquarters. “I was given no rationale for this decision, which, as you might imagine, has come as a shock.” It’s unclear whether he has now been given a reprieve.
Nor did the list include executive assistant director Arlene Gaylord, a 33-year FBI veteran who was not retirement-eligible and requested that she be allowed to work in another assignment until she did so. An FBI official familiar with the matter said she had been accommodated.
Experts say the firings are illegal
Legal experts said that few, if any, of the firings carried out so far by the Trump administration have been legal under civil service laws because the employees were not afforded due process.
The Trump White House argues, though, that the president has the absolute right to fire anyone he wishes in the executive branch. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal employees have a right to a hearing before they are disciplined or terminated.
Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News legal contributor, called the firings illegal.
“Career federal employees can be fired for conduct or performance issues, not because they failed to demonstrate political loyalty to the current incumbent of the White House,” said Vance. “Trump ignored controlling law and regulations to do this, and unless the Supreme Court changes their interpretation, any firing of permanent members of the civil service should not stand.”
Even if some of the employees sue and win, they said their public service careers have been irreparably damaged, if not ended.
One of the Jan. 6 prosecutors fired on Friday told NBC News that they “did nothing wrong” and had no regrets about their work. The person, who asked not to named due to fear of retaliation, said it was discouraging to be fired after seeing Trump pardon violent rioters who attacked police officers.
“We’ve all been looking over our shoulders, like, ‘Is this the day that we’re gonna get fired?’ Because we were doing our jobs?” the fired prosecutor told NBC News. “We’ve been forced to dismiss all of the cases that we’ve been working on of all these people that were very violent offenders. It’s been awful.”
Current and former FBI agents say the purge at the bureau has had a shattering effect on the morale, sending a message that agents who work on cases that anger someone in the Trump administration could be targeted.
“Who right now would want to work on a case that would get them crosswise with the administration?” one former FBI official asked. “They will come after you.”
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:05 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:16 am
Part 1 of 2
United States District Court for the District of Columbia: National Council of Nonprofits, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Management and Budget, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA); Memorandum Opinion and Order: "Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards
by USDC Judge Loren L. Alikhan
February 3, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and for the reasons explained below, the court grants Plaintiffs' motion, denies Defendants’ motion, and enters a temporary restraining order against Defendants pursuant to the terms outlined at the end of this order.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-13
On January 27, 2025, Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), issued a memorandum (“M-25-13”) directing federal agencies to “complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 15. The memorandum further stated that, “[ i]n the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency acti[vities] that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” Id. ¶ 16; Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/69QB-VFG8 (“OMB Pause Memorandum”).
The memorandum defined “Federal financial assistance” as: “(i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 [C.F.R. §] 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.” Id. ¶ 17. This includes all federal assistance in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance. Id. ¶ 18; see 2 C.F.R. § 200.1. As relevant executive orders, it listed:
▪ Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025); and
▪ Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025).
OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1-2.
The memorandum stated that “[t]he temporary pause [would] become effective on January 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM.” Id. at 2. During the pause, agencies were directed to “submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects[,] or activities subject to [the] pause” on or before February 10, 2025. Id. at 2.
B. Complaint, Emergency Hearing, and Administrative Stay
Shortly after noon on January 28, several coalitions of nonprofit organizations brought this action against OMB and Acting Director Vaeth arguing that OMB’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the implicated federal grants and funding “are the lifeblood of operations and programs for many . . . nonprofits, and [that] even a short pause in funding . . . could deprive people and communities of their life-saving services.” Id. ¶ 32. They argue that Defendants’ action was arbitrary and capricious, violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and exceeded OMB’s statutory authority. Id. ¶¶ 43-61.
Along with their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) “barring the OMB and all of its officers, employees, and agents from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce Memo M-25-13.” ECF No. 5, at 18. Defendants entered an appearance, ECF No. 9, and the court held an emergency hearing at 4:00 p.m. on January 28 to discern the parties’ positions with respect to the issuance of a brief administrative stay pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, Minute Order (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
Given the extreme time constraints of the litigation and the magnitude of the legal issues, the court entered a brief administrative stay to permit the parties to fully brief the TRO motion and “buy[] the court time to deliberate.”1 ECF No. 13, at 3 (quoting United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring)). The administrative stay prohibited Defendants “from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards” until 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 4-5. The court also set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO motion for 11:00 a.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 5.
C. Rescission of Memorandum M-25-13 and Aftermath
On January 29, the day after the court entered its administrative stay, OMB issued a new memorandum (“M-25-14”) that purported to rescind M-25-13. See ECF Nos. 18, 18-1. The new memorandum consisted of two sentences: “OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded. If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.” ECF No. 18-1.
Shortly after this “rescission” was issued, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced from her official social media account that the new memorandum was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Instead, she stated that “[ i]t [was] simply a rescission of [OMB memorandum M-25-13].” Id. She further explained that the purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. The entire post may be viewed below:
Id.
On January 30, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion and concurrently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 21. As of February 1, both motions were fully briefed. ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26.
D. Temporary Restraining Order Hearing
On the morning of February 3, 2025, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. See Minute Entry, (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court explained that it was inclined to grant a TRO and deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Pursuant to the court’s request, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed TRO order shortly after the hearing concluded, and Defendants responded to the proposed order by mid-afternoon.
E. Parallel Litigation in the District of Rhode Island
On the same day Plaintiffs filed this suit, and several hours before memorandum M-25-13’s pause was to go into effect, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and sought a TRO to halt implementation of the memorandum. See Compl., New York v. Trump, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), ECF No. 1. The district court scheduled a hearing for January 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Following the hearing, which took place after OMB had “rescinded” memorandum M-25-13, the court granted the States’ request and issued a TRO on January 31, 2025. TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. The restraining order prohibited the defendants (President Trump, OMB, and eleven federal agencies) from “paus[ing], freez[ing], imped[ing], block[ing], cancel[ing], or terminat[ing] [their] compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the [plaintiff] States.” Id. at 11. The order also prohibited the defendants “from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the [OMB memorandum M-25-13] under any other name or title, . . . such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.” Id. at 12. Finally, the court directed the plaintiff States to file their forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction expeditiously. Id. at 11.
On the morning of February 3, the defendants filed a notice of compliance with the court’s TRO. Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51. In it, the defendants explained that they had provided written notice to all defendant agencies on January 31 to inform them of the TRO and instruct them to comply with its restrictions. Id. ¶ 1. The defendants also notified the court that they believed certain terms of the TRO “constitute[d] significant intrusions on the Executive Branch’s lawful authorities and the separation of powers.” Id. ¶ 2.
The litigation remains ongoing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Before reaching the merits, Defendants raise two threshold jurisdictional arguments. First, they argue that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not adequately alleged injury in fact, causation, or redressability. ECF No. 21-1, at 7-11. Second, they claim that the case is now moot because OMB rescinded memorandum M-25-13 after Plaintiffs filed suit. Id. at 6. The court is unpersuaded on both counts.
1. Standing
A plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must establish standing by showing: (1) that it suffered an injury in fact, which is a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent, rather than hypothetical, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions, and (3) a non-speculative likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a decision in the plaintiff’s favor. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Standing is “assessed as of the time a suit commences,” meaning that post-complaint events will not deprive a plaintiff of standing. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy all three elements of standing. The court disagrees.
a. Injury in fact
When a plaintiff association tries to sue on behalf of its members, it must demonstrate that: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”2 Metro. Wash. Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 62 F.4th 567, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). When facing a motion to dismiss, an association plaintiff “need only make a plausible allegation of facts establishing each element of standing.” Cutler v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 797 F.3d 1173, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to “identif[y] a single member who . . . would be injured,” ECF No. 21-1, at 9 (quoting Chamber of Commerce, 642 F.3d at 200), but that is incorrect. Plaintiffs allege that even a temporary pause in funding to their members, such as the American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance, would destroy their ability to provide medical and low-income childcare services. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33-34, 36-40. On top of these economic injuries, Plaintiffs’ members face First Amendment harms because the memorandum targets funds that relate to “DEI [and] woke gender ideology.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 35-36, 42. Defendants reply that Plaintiffs “must present more than allegations of a subjective chill” and need to allege “present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” ECF No. 26, at 3 (quoting Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 816-17 (1975)). At this early stage, Plaintiffs have done exactly that: they claim that Defendants have singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.
Defendants further argue that a temporary pause would be far too brief to cause lasting damage, but the record belies these claims. First, Defendants have no factual basis on which to build such a counterargument. The pause outlined in memorandum M-25-13 is effectively indefinite with no clear parameters for when it will end. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Second, Plaintiffs have provided numerous declarations showing that many organizations need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.3 One health center pays its employees “biweekly, on Thursdays,” requiring it to “draw down grant funds on the preceding Tuesday” so that they reach the health center’s bank account by Wednesday. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 6. Some of those employees “live paycheck to paycheck,” meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent. Id. ¶ 7. Separately, a member of a tribal organization was forced to lay off two employees on January 28 because it could not access its grant funds that day. ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 13. And another nonprofit dedicated to ending homelessness was forced to suspend a birth certificate and identification card program just so that it could keep its employees on payroll. ECF No. 24-7 ¶ 20-21.
Defendants also speculate that, at least for some organizations, OMB may have pre-approved certain programs so as to prevent any interruption in disbursements. Unfortunately for Defendants, the precise opposite appears to be true. According to Plaintiffs’ declarations, many organizations were blocked from accessing their funds well before 5:00 p.m. on January 28, when the freeze was set to begin. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8 (unable to access fund portal during the day on January 28); 24-7 ¶ 13 (same); 24-8 ¶ 9 (unable to access fund portal on January 27).
The alleged injuries to Plaintiffs’ many members are sufficiently concrete and imminent to satisfy the first element of standing. For many, the harms caused by the freeze are non-speculative, impending, and potentially catastrophic. Defendants’ assertion that these injuries are nothing more than “a setback to [Plaintiffs’] abstract social interests,” ECF No. 26, at 3-4 (quoting Food & Drug Admin. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 394 (2024)), is blatantly contradicted by the record. Plaintiffs have adequately shown injury in fact.
b. Causation
Defendants next try to break the causal chain between memorandum M-25-13 and Plaintiffs’ harms. Defendants argue that with the memorandum now rescinded, any lingering pauses in funding are not fairly traceable to the memorandum itself. Instead, they say, Plaintiffs must take up their grievances with the individual agencies responsible for disbursing their funds. ECF Nos. 21-1, at 10-11; 26, at 5-7.
At a high level, Defendants are correct that harms caused by third parties are generally not traceable to the defendant. See Fla. Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 664 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (explaining that traceability must be to “the challenged acts of the defendant, not of some absent third party”). And where causation “hinge[s] on the independent choices of [a] regulated third party,” like the states or other federal actors, it is the plaintiff’s burden “to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation.” Ctr. for L. & Educ. v. Dep’t of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs claim that memorandum M-25-13 “was not a suggestion but a command to agencies, and [the agencies] have treated it as such.” ECF No. 24, at 17. They further allege that their economic and constitutional harms stem directly from the memorandum’s directives, making OMB and Acting Director Vaeth the proper defendants. Id.
In their briefing, Defendants rely on two cases to make their counterargument. See ECF No. 21-1, at 10-11. In Louisiana ex rel. Landry v. Biden, 64 F.4th 674 (5th Cir. 2023), the Fifth Circuit held that an OMB working group’s “guidance” and publication of cost estimates did not confer standing on plaintiffs who sought to block its effects, id. at 681-82. As an initial matter, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling had nothing to do with the causation element of standing. The court only considered whether the “possibility of regulation” was an “injury in fact.” Id. (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 667 F.3d 6, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). But even if the court were to extend its reasoning to causation, Defendants’ argument still fails. The executive order in Louisiana “d[id] not require any action from federal agencies.” Id. at 681. Agencies were not mandated to “implement the Interim Estimates” and could “exercise discretion” in choosing whether or not they applied. Id. In contrast, memorandum M-25-13 states in no uncertain terms (and in bold typeface, no less) that “Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Such a directive leaves no room for discretion. Louisiana is therefore inapposite.
Defendants’ second case fares no better. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020), voters sued to change the process by which gubernatorial candidates were listed on voting ballots, id. at 1242. The plaintiffs only named the Florida secretary of state as a defendant. Id. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs could not show causation because nonparty “supervisors of elections”—not the secretary of state—determined the ballot order. Id. at 1253. But critical to the court’s ruling was the fact that the supervisors were “independent officials under Florida law who [were] not subject to the [s]ecretary’s control.” Id. Instead, they were “constitutional officers who [were] elected at the county level by the people of Florida.” Id. Suing the secretary was therefore futile because she exercised no executive, statutory, or other authority over the supervisors’ actions. Here, however, Defendants do not argue that OMB is powerless to dictate executive policy, nor could they (indeed, they try to argue the exact opposite). See 31 U.S.C. § 503 (establishing that OMB “[p]rovides overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters by establishing financial management policies and requirements”); ECF No. 21-1, at 16-20. Unlike the secretary in Jacobson, OMB can exert some influence on federal spending policy (even though Plaintiffs dispute the extend of that authority). Its actions therefore give rise to causation in this case.
The record also supports Plaintiffs’ allegations of causation. On January 30, after this court’s administrative stay and OMB’s purported “rescission” of M-25-13, the Environmental Protection Agency responded to a nonprofit’s funding inquiry by saying that it was still “working diligently to implement [OMB]’s memorandum, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.” ECF No. 24-1, at 7. The EPA further explained that it was “temporarily pausing all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of EPA Federal financial assistance at this time” and was “continuing to work with OMB” to do so. Id. The EPA’s statement that it was freezing funds in order to “implement” memorandum M-25-13 contradicts Defendants’ claim that continued pauses are only attributable to independent agency action. At oral argument, Defendants represented that as soon as they learned of EPA’s continued pause, they contacted the agency to correct any misunderstandings. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). In this early posture, however, and pending further factual development by the parties, the court relies on Plaintiffs’ post-rescission declarations to conclude that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged causation.
c. Redressability
Causation and redressability are closely related. While the former “focus[es] on whether a particular party is appropriate[,] redressability [considers] whether the forum is.” Bentsen, 94 F.3d at 664. In short, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the relief sought, if granted, “will likely alleviate the particularized injury alleged.” Id. at 663-64. Plaintiffs argue that blocking Defendants from doing anything to implement the substance of memorandum M-25-13 would remedy their harms. ECF No. 24, at 17-18.
Defendants respond by saying that blocking memorandum M-25-13 “would not prevent non-defendant agencies from exercising their own independent authorities to determine whether . . . a pause is warranted.” ECF No. 21-1, at 11. But, as discussed above, there is at least some evidence that agencies are pausing disbursements because of memorandum M-25-13. See supra Part II.A.1.b.
Prior to the issuance of memorandum M-25-13, Plaintiffs’ members reportedly never had problems drawing down funds or receiving financial assistance. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8; 24-5 ¶ 10. That all changed beginning January 28, immediately after OMB issued memorandum M-25-13. Streams of funds that had steadily flowed for years without issue suddenly ran dry. If the court were to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief, Defendants would be barred from instructing all federal agencies across the board to temporarily pause (or continue pausing) financial assistance on the basis of the memorandum or its substance.4 In other words, agencies would need to behave as if the memorandum were never issued. Defendants act as if any continued freeze is merely a random coincidence that could not possibly have anything to do with their memorandum. In the court’s view, that explanation ignores both logic and fact. Plaintiffs have adequately shown that a ruling in their favor will alleviate their alleged injuries.
2. Mootness
Mootness concerns whether there is still a live controversy for the court to adjudicate. Courts often describe mootness as “the doctrine of standing set in a time frame.” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (quoting Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ complaint as only challenging OMB memorandum M-25-13. ECF No. 21-1, at 6. Therefore, in Defendants’ view, OMB’s post-complaint rescission of that memorandum eliminated the lawsuit’s only basis and mooted Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. This fails for several reasons.
First, it is blackletter law that a defendant’s “voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine [its] legality.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). If voluntary cessation automatically mooted every case, a defendant would be “free to return to [its] old ways” as soon as the case was dismissed. Id. (quoting City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289). Voluntary cessation can only deprive the court of jurisdiction if it is “absolutely clear [that] the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (emphasis added) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189). This is a “heavy burden” for the party asserting mootness. Id.
Here, Defendants claim that they have ended any allegedly unlawful activity by retracting memorandum M-25-13. Even taking the rescission at face value, however, Defendants have not convincingly shown that they will refrain from “resum[ing] the challenged activity” in the future. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128. As evidenced by the White House Press Secretary’s statements, OMB and the various agencies it communicates with appear committed to restricting federal funding. If Defendants retracted the memorandum in name only while continuing to execute its directives, it is far from “absolutely clear” that the conduct is gone for good. There is nothing stopping OMB from rewording, repackaging, or reissuing the substance of memorandum M-25-13 if the court were to dismiss this lawsuit.
The voluntary cessation doctrine is especially important in cases where the defendant is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute.” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of doing exactly that here. ECF No. 24, at 19-20.
Defendants understandably dispute this accusation. They protest that such a conclusion “would be contrary to the presumption of good faith that courts routinely accord the government when assessing voluntary cessation.” ECF No. 26, at 8 (citing Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010)). Defendants are correct that courts of this circuit generally hesitate “to impute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of government.” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128-29 (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)). But this reluctance does not apply when the government defendant deliberately acts “in order to avoid litigation.” Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 17 F.4th 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Am. Bar Ass’n v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 636 F.3d 641, 648 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Here, Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.
Within hours of OMB’s rescission, White House Press Secretary Leavitt announced that the rescission was to have no tangible effect on “the federal funding freeze.” Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Moreover, she explained that the primary purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. That statement unambiguously reflects that the rescission was in direct response to this court’s issuance of an administrative stay on January 28.5 For Defendants to innocently claim that OMB’s post-stay actions were merely a noble attempt to “end[] confusion,” ECF No. 26, at 8, strains credulity. By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but “NOT . . . the federal funding freeze” itself, id., it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief.
Second, even if voluntary cessation did not apply, the facts on the ground indicate that this case is anything but moot. Even aside from the Press Secretary’s seeming admission that the pause will continue as planned, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that fund recipients continue to be deprived of critical loans, grants, and other resources. For example, the chief executive officer of a community health center stated that he was unable to access critical funds awarded under an H80 grant (authorized by the Public Health Service Act) starting on January 28. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 10. After this court entered its administrative stay that afternoon, he was still unable to access funds the next day. Id. ¶ 11. And after OMB rescinded memorandum M-25-13 on January 29, he was still blocked from accessing grant funds as recently as January 31. Id. ¶ 12. Similarly, members of a tribal organization who were unable to draw down grant funds starting on January 28 had still not received any funds as recently as January 31. ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 24. And low-income parents who rely on federal grants to enable their children to attend childcare still had not received their subsidies as recently as January 31. ECF No. 24-11 ¶ 19; see, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9. Each of these examples indicates that the funding pause remains in effect—at least for some recipients—despite OMB’s rescission of memorandum M-25-13. Defendants cannot persuasively argue that the rescission of memorandum M-25-13 moots the case if the effects and directives of that memorandum continue to remain in full force. Destroying the paper trail of allegedly illegal activity means nothing if the activity persists.
In a last-ditch effort to toss the case on mootness grounds, Defendants argue that even if aspects of the funding freeze remain in effect, they persist independent of memorandum M-25-13 and thus must be challenged in a different lawsuit. ECF No. 26, at 9. In their view, just because some money is not “going out the door” does not necessarily mean that it is due to OMB’s action. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). To the extent that funds still remain paused in spite of this court’s administrative stay or the memorandum’s rescission, Defendants argue that those pauses are the result of independent agency discretion or the President’s executive orders.
This is essentially a slightly repackaged version of Defendants’ causation argument: with the memorandum now rescinded, any lingering pauses in funding are not fairly traceable to the memorandum itself. Insofar as this lawsuit challenges the memorandum, Defendants argue that that avenue to relief is now closed. But, as explained above, supra Part II.A.1.b. & n.4, the court is not persuaded that the continuing freezes are solely due to independent agency action. Both logic and record evidence point to the opposite conclusion. As Plaintiffs’ counsel noted at oral argument, it is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
With respect to the executive orders, which the parties discussed at length during oral argument, the court remains unconvinced. Defendants’ counsel cited provisions of the executive orders referenced in M-25-13 that purportedly required temporary pauses in funding. Id. It is true that at least some of the executive orders contain language that could be construed as requiring fund pauses (albeit on much more drawn out timelines than memorandum M-25-13). See Exec. Order No. 14,151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025) (requiring all federal agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, . . . ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts” within sixty days); Exec. Order No. 14,162, Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, 90 Fed. Reg. 8455 (Jan. 20, 2025) (directing the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to “immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment made by the United States under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”). But Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the scope of frozen funds appears to extend far beyond the reach of the executive orders, thus undermining Defendants’ claims.
As just one example, a health center that provides medical, dental, and behavioral health services to a rural community was denied access to grant funds. See ECF No. 24-4. None of the seven executive orders listed in memorandum M-25-13 would seem to cover such activity. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 14,159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing illegal immigration); Exec. Order No. 14,169, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing foreign aid); Exec. Order No. 14,162, Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, 90 Fed. Reg. 8455 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing international environmental agreements); Exec. Order No. 14,154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing energy industry and regulations); Exec. Order No. 14,151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs); Exec. Order No. 14,168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing “gender ideology”); Exec. Order No. 14,182, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, 90 Fed. Reg. 8751 (Jan. 24, 2025) (addressing federal funding of abortion). At oral argument, when asked about another declarant who was receiving a grant from the National Science Foundation, see ECF No. 24-7, Defendants could not give a clear answer as to why that recipient would be denied funds pursuant to the executive orders, Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). In sum, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that rescinding memorandum M-25-13 did not moot the case.
* * *
For these reasons, the court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaint.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia: National Council of Nonprofits, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Management and Budget, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA); Memorandum Opinion and Order: "Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards
by USDC Judge Loren L. Alikhan
February 3, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s temporary restraining order to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed. The written notice shall instruct those agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal Funds under all open awards. It shall also instruct those agencies to release any disbursements on open awards that were paused due to OMB Memorandum M-25-13; it is further
ORDERED that this Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and for the reasons explained below, the court grants Plaintiffs' motion, denies Defendants’ motion, and enters a temporary restraining order against Defendants pursuant to the terms outlined at the end of this order.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-13
On January 27, 2025, Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), issued a memorandum (“M-25-13”) directing federal agencies to “complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 15. The memorandum further stated that, “[ i]n the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency acti[vities] that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” Id. ¶ 16; Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/69QB-VFG8 (“OMB Pause Memorandum”).
The memorandum defined “Federal financial assistance” as: “(i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 [C.F.R. §] 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.” Id. ¶ 17. This includes all federal assistance in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance. Id. ¶ 18; see 2 C.F.R. § 200.1. As relevant executive orders, it listed:
▪ Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025);
▪ Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025); and
▪ Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025).
OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1-2.
The memorandum stated that “[t]he temporary pause [would] become effective on January 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM.” Id. at 2. During the pause, agencies were directed to “submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects[,] or activities subject to [the] pause” on or before February 10, 2025. Id. at 2.
B. Complaint, Emergency Hearing, and Administrative Stay
Shortly after noon on January 28, several coalitions of nonprofit organizations brought this action against OMB and Acting Director Vaeth arguing that OMB’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the implicated federal grants and funding “are the lifeblood of operations and programs for many . . . nonprofits, and [that] even a short pause in funding . . . could deprive people and communities of their life-saving services.” Id. ¶ 32. They argue that Defendants’ action was arbitrary and capricious, violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and exceeded OMB’s statutory authority. Id. ¶¶ 43-61.
Along with their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) “barring the OMB and all of its officers, employees, and agents from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce Memo M-25-13.” ECF No. 5, at 18. Defendants entered an appearance, ECF No. 9, and the court held an emergency hearing at 4:00 p.m. on January 28 to discern the parties’ positions with respect to the issuance of a brief administrative stay pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, Minute Order (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
Given the extreme time constraints of the litigation and the magnitude of the legal issues, the court entered a brief administrative stay to permit the parties to fully brief the TRO motion and “buy[] the court time to deliberate.”1 ECF No. 13, at 3 (quoting United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring)). The administrative stay prohibited Defendants “from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards” until 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 4-5. The court also set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO motion for 11:00 a.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 5.
C. Rescission of Memorandum M-25-13 and Aftermath
On January 29, the day after the court entered its administrative stay, OMB issued a new memorandum (“M-25-14”) that purported to rescind M-25-13. See ECF Nos. 18, 18-1. The new memorandum consisted of two sentences: “OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded. If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.” ECF No. 18-1.
Shortly after this “rescission” was issued, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced from her official social media account that the new memorandum was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Instead, she stated that “[ i]t [was] simply a rescission of [OMB memorandum M-25-13].” Id. She further explained that the purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. The entire post may be viewed below:
Karoline Leavitt
@PressSec
This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.
It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.
Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction.
The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.
11:40 AM · Jan 29, 2025
Id.
On January 30, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion and concurrently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 21. As of February 1, both motions were fully briefed. ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26.
D. Temporary Restraining Order Hearing
On the morning of February 3, 2025, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. See Minute Entry, (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court explained that it was inclined to grant a TRO and deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Pursuant to the court’s request, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed TRO order shortly after the hearing concluded, and Defendants responded to the proposed order by mid-afternoon.
E. Parallel Litigation in the District of Rhode Island
On the same day Plaintiffs filed this suit, and several hours before memorandum M-25-13’s pause was to go into effect, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and sought a TRO to halt implementation of the memorandum. See Compl., New York v. Trump, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), ECF No. 1. The district court scheduled a hearing for January 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Following the hearing, which took place after OMB had “rescinded” memorandum M-25-13, the court granted the States’ request and issued a TRO on January 31, 2025. TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. The restraining order prohibited the defendants (President Trump, OMB, and eleven federal agencies) from “paus[ing], freez[ing], imped[ing], block[ing], cancel[ing], or terminat[ing] [their] compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the [plaintiff] States.” Id. at 11. The order also prohibited the defendants “from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the [OMB memorandum M-25-13] under any other name or title, . . . such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.” Id. at 12. Finally, the court directed the plaintiff States to file their forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction expeditiously. Id. at 11.
On the morning of February 3, the defendants filed a notice of compliance with the court’s TRO. Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51. In it, the defendants explained that they had provided written notice to all defendant agencies on January 31 to inform them of the TRO and instruct them to comply with its restrictions. Id. ¶ 1. The defendants also notified the court that they believed certain terms of the TRO “constitute[d] significant intrusions on the Executive Branch’s lawful authorities and the separation of powers.” Id. ¶ 2.
The litigation remains ongoing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Before reaching the merits, Defendants raise two threshold jurisdictional arguments. First, they argue that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not adequately alleged injury in fact, causation, or redressability. ECF No. 21-1, at 7-11. Second, they claim that the case is now moot because OMB rescinded memorandum M-25-13 after Plaintiffs filed suit. Id. at 6. The court is unpersuaded on both counts.
1. Standing
A plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must establish standing by showing: (1) that it suffered an injury in fact, which is a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent, rather than hypothetical, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions, and (3) a non-speculative likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a decision in the plaintiff’s favor. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Standing is “assessed as of the time a suit commences,” meaning that post-complaint events will not deprive a plaintiff of standing. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy all three elements of standing. The court disagrees.
a. Injury in fact
When a plaintiff association tries to sue on behalf of its members, it must demonstrate that: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”2 Metro. Wash. Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 62 F.4th 567, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). When facing a motion to dismiss, an association plaintiff “need only make a plausible allegation of facts establishing each element of standing.” Cutler v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 797 F.3d 1173, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to “identif[y] a single member who . . . would be injured,” ECF No. 21-1, at 9 (quoting Chamber of Commerce, 642 F.3d at 200), but that is incorrect. Plaintiffs allege that even a temporary pause in funding to their members, such as the American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance, would destroy their ability to provide medical and low-income childcare services. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33-34, 36-40. On top of these economic injuries, Plaintiffs’ members face First Amendment harms because the memorandum targets funds that relate to “DEI [and] woke gender ideology.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 35-36, 42. Defendants reply that Plaintiffs “must present more than allegations of a subjective chill” and need to allege “present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” ECF No. 26, at 3 (quoting Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 816-17 (1975)). At this early stage, Plaintiffs have done exactly that: they claim that Defendants have singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.
Defendants further argue that a temporary pause would be far too brief to cause lasting damage, but the record belies these claims. First, Defendants have no factual basis on which to build such a counterargument. The pause outlined in memorandum M-25-13 is effectively indefinite with no clear parameters for when it will end. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Second, Plaintiffs have provided numerous declarations showing that many organizations need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.3 One health center pays its employees “biweekly, on Thursdays,” requiring it to “draw down grant funds on the preceding Tuesday” so that they reach the health center’s bank account by Wednesday. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 6. Some of those employees “live paycheck to paycheck,” meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent. Id. ¶ 7. Separately, a member of a tribal organization was forced to lay off two employees on January 28 because it could not access its grant funds that day. ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 13. And another nonprofit dedicated to ending homelessness was forced to suspend a birth certificate and identification card program just so that it could keep its employees on payroll. ECF No. 24-7 ¶ 20-21.
Defendants also speculate that, at least for some organizations, OMB may have pre-approved certain programs so as to prevent any interruption in disbursements. Unfortunately for Defendants, the precise opposite appears to be true. According to Plaintiffs’ declarations, many organizations were blocked from accessing their funds well before 5:00 p.m. on January 28, when the freeze was set to begin. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8 (unable to access fund portal during the day on January 28); 24-7 ¶ 13 (same); 24-8 ¶ 9 (unable to access fund portal on January 27).
The alleged injuries to Plaintiffs’ many members are sufficiently concrete and imminent to satisfy the first element of standing. For many, the harms caused by the freeze are non-speculative, impending, and potentially catastrophic. Defendants’ assertion that these injuries are nothing more than “a setback to [Plaintiffs’] abstract social interests,” ECF No. 26, at 3-4 (quoting Food & Drug Admin. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 394 (2024)), is blatantly contradicted by the record. Plaintiffs have adequately shown injury in fact.
b. Causation
Defendants next try to break the causal chain between memorandum M-25-13 and Plaintiffs’ harms. Defendants argue that with the memorandum now rescinded, any lingering pauses in funding are not fairly traceable to the memorandum itself. Instead, they say, Plaintiffs must take up their grievances with the individual agencies responsible for disbursing their funds. ECF Nos. 21-1, at 10-11; 26, at 5-7.
At a high level, Defendants are correct that harms caused by third parties are generally not traceable to the defendant. See Fla. Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 664 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (explaining that traceability must be to “the challenged acts of the defendant, not of some absent third party”). And where causation “hinge[s] on the independent choices of [a] regulated third party,” like the states or other federal actors, it is the plaintiff’s burden “to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation.” Ctr. for L. & Educ. v. Dep’t of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs claim that memorandum M-25-13 “was not a suggestion but a command to agencies, and [the agencies] have treated it as such.” ECF No. 24, at 17. They further allege that their economic and constitutional harms stem directly from the memorandum’s directives, making OMB and Acting Director Vaeth the proper defendants. Id.
In their briefing, Defendants rely on two cases to make their counterargument. See ECF No. 21-1, at 10-11. In Louisiana ex rel. Landry v. Biden, 64 F.4th 674 (5th Cir. 2023), the Fifth Circuit held that an OMB working group’s “guidance” and publication of cost estimates did not confer standing on plaintiffs who sought to block its effects, id. at 681-82. As an initial matter, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling had nothing to do with the causation element of standing. The court only considered whether the “possibility of regulation” was an “injury in fact.” Id. (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 667 F.3d 6, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). But even if the court were to extend its reasoning to causation, Defendants’ argument still fails. The executive order in Louisiana “d[id] not require any action from federal agencies.” Id. at 681. Agencies were not mandated to “implement the Interim Estimates” and could “exercise discretion” in choosing whether or not they applied. Id. In contrast, memorandum M-25-13 states in no uncertain terms (and in bold typeface, no less) that “Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Such a directive leaves no room for discretion. Louisiana is therefore inapposite.
Defendants’ second case fares no better. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020), voters sued to change the process by which gubernatorial candidates were listed on voting ballots, id. at 1242. The plaintiffs only named the Florida secretary of state as a defendant. Id. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs could not show causation because nonparty “supervisors of elections”—not the secretary of state—determined the ballot order. Id. at 1253. But critical to the court’s ruling was the fact that the supervisors were “independent officials under Florida law who [were] not subject to the [s]ecretary’s control.” Id. Instead, they were “constitutional officers who [were] elected at the county level by the people of Florida.” Id. Suing the secretary was therefore futile because she exercised no executive, statutory, or other authority over the supervisors’ actions. Here, however, Defendants do not argue that OMB is powerless to dictate executive policy, nor could they (indeed, they try to argue the exact opposite). See 31 U.S.C. § 503 (establishing that OMB “[p]rovides overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters by establishing financial management policies and requirements”); ECF No. 21-1, at 16-20. Unlike the secretary in Jacobson, OMB can exert some influence on federal spending policy (even though Plaintiffs dispute the extend of that authority). Its actions therefore give rise to causation in this case.
The record also supports Plaintiffs’ allegations of causation. On January 30, after this court’s administrative stay and OMB’s purported “rescission” of M-25-13, the Environmental Protection Agency responded to a nonprofit’s funding inquiry by saying that it was still “working diligently to implement [OMB]’s memorandum, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.” ECF No. 24-1, at 7. The EPA further explained that it was “temporarily pausing all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of EPA Federal financial assistance at this time” and was “continuing to work with OMB” to do so. Id. The EPA’s statement that it was freezing funds in order to “implement” memorandum M-25-13 contradicts Defendants’ claim that continued pauses are only attributable to independent agency action. At oral argument, Defendants represented that as soon as they learned of EPA’s continued pause, they contacted the agency to correct any misunderstandings. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). In this early posture, however, and pending further factual development by the parties, the court relies on Plaintiffs’ post-rescission declarations to conclude that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged causation.
c. Redressability
Causation and redressability are closely related. While the former “focus[es] on whether a particular party is appropriate[,] redressability [considers] whether the forum is.” Bentsen, 94 F.3d at 664. In short, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the relief sought, if granted, “will likely alleviate the particularized injury alleged.” Id. at 663-64. Plaintiffs argue that blocking Defendants from doing anything to implement the substance of memorandum M-25-13 would remedy their harms. ECF No. 24, at 17-18.
Defendants respond by saying that blocking memorandum M-25-13 “would not prevent non-defendant agencies from exercising their own independent authorities to determine whether . . . a pause is warranted.” ECF No. 21-1, at 11. But, as discussed above, there is at least some evidence that agencies are pausing disbursements because of memorandum M-25-13. See supra Part II.A.1.b.
Prior to the issuance of memorandum M-25-13, Plaintiffs’ members reportedly never had problems drawing down funds or receiving financial assistance. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8; 24-5 ¶ 10. That all changed beginning January 28, immediately after OMB issued memorandum M-25-13. Streams of funds that had steadily flowed for years without issue suddenly ran dry. If the court were to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief, Defendants would be barred from instructing all federal agencies across the board to temporarily pause (or continue pausing) financial assistance on the basis of the memorandum or its substance.4 In other words, agencies would need to behave as if the memorandum were never issued. Defendants act as if any continued freeze is merely a random coincidence that could not possibly have anything to do with their memorandum. In the court’s view, that explanation ignores both logic and fact. Plaintiffs have adequately shown that a ruling in their favor will alleviate their alleged injuries.
2. Mootness
Mootness concerns whether there is still a live controversy for the court to adjudicate. Courts often describe mootness as “the doctrine of standing set in a time frame.” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (quoting Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ complaint as only challenging OMB memorandum M-25-13. ECF No. 21-1, at 6. Therefore, in Defendants’ view, OMB’s post-complaint rescission of that memorandum eliminated the lawsuit’s only basis and mooted Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. This fails for several reasons.
First, it is blackletter law that a defendant’s “voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine [its] legality.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). If voluntary cessation automatically mooted every case, a defendant would be “free to return to [its] old ways” as soon as the case was dismissed. Id. (quoting City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289). Voluntary cessation can only deprive the court of jurisdiction if it is “absolutely clear [that] the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (emphasis added) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189). This is a “heavy burden” for the party asserting mootness. Id.
Here, Defendants claim that they have ended any allegedly unlawful activity by retracting memorandum M-25-13. Even taking the rescission at face value, however, Defendants have not convincingly shown that they will refrain from “resum[ing] the challenged activity” in the future. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128. As evidenced by the White House Press Secretary’s statements, OMB and the various agencies it communicates with appear committed to restricting federal funding. If Defendants retracted the memorandum in name only while continuing to execute its directives, it is far from “absolutely clear” that the conduct is gone for good. There is nothing stopping OMB from rewording, repackaging, or reissuing the substance of memorandum M-25-13 if the court were to dismiss this lawsuit.
The voluntary cessation doctrine is especially important in cases where the defendant is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute.” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of doing exactly that here. ECF No. 24, at 19-20.
Defendants understandably dispute this accusation. They protest that such a conclusion “would be contrary to the presumption of good faith that courts routinely accord the government when assessing voluntary cessation.” ECF No. 26, at 8 (citing Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010)). Defendants are correct that courts of this circuit generally hesitate “to impute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of government.” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128-29 (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)). But this reluctance does not apply when the government defendant deliberately acts “in order to avoid litigation.” Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 17 F.4th 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Am. Bar Ass’n v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 636 F.3d 641, 648 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Here, Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.
Within hours of OMB’s rescission, White House Press Secretary Leavitt announced that the rescission was to have no tangible effect on “the federal funding freeze.” Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Moreover, she explained that the primary purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. That statement unambiguously reflects that the rescission was in direct response to this court’s issuance of an administrative stay on January 28.5 For Defendants to innocently claim that OMB’s post-stay actions were merely a noble attempt to “end[] confusion,” ECF No. 26, at 8, strains credulity. By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but “NOT . . . the federal funding freeze” itself, id., it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief.
Second, even if voluntary cessation did not apply, the facts on the ground indicate that this case is anything but moot. Even aside from the Press Secretary’s seeming admission that the pause will continue as planned, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that fund recipients continue to be deprived of critical loans, grants, and other resources. For example, the chief executive officer of a community health center stated that he was unable to access critical funds awarded under an H80 grant (authorized by the Public Health Service Act) starting on January 28. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 10. After this court entered its administrative stay that afternoon, he was still unable to access funds the next day. Id. ¶ 11. And after OMB rescinded memorandum M-25-13 on January 29, he was still blocked from accessing grant funds as recently as January 31. Id. ¶ 12. Similarly, members of a tribal organization who were unable to draw down grant funds starting on January 28 had still not received any funds as recently as January 31. ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 24. And low-income parents who rely on federal grants to enable their children to attend childcare still had not received their subsidies as recently as January 31. ECF No. 24-11 ¶ 19; see, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9. Each of these examples indicates that the funding pause remains in effect—at least for some recipients—despite OMB’s rescission of memorandum M-25-13. Defendants cannot persuasively argue that the rescission of memorandum M-25-13 moots the case if the effects and directives of that memorandum continue to remain in full force. Destroying the paper trail of allegedly illegal activity means nothing if the activity persists.
In a last-ditch effort to toss the case on mootness grounds, Defendants argue that even if aspects of the funding freeze remain in effect, they persist independent of memorandum M-25-13 and thus must be challenged in a different lawsuit. ECF No. 26, at 9. In their view, just because some money is not “going out the door” does not necessarily mean that it is due to OMB’s action. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). To the extent that funds still remain paused in spite of this court’s administrative stay or the memorandum’s rescission, Defendants argue that those pauses are the result of independent agency discretion or the President’s executive orders.
This is essentially a slightly repackaged version of Defendants’ causation argument: with the memorandum now rescinded, any lingering pauses in funding are not fairly traceable to the memorandum itself. Insofar as this lawsuit challenges the memorandum, Defendants argue that that avenue to relief is now closed. But, as explained above, supra Part II.A.1.b. & n.4, the court is not persuaded that the continuing freezes are solely due to independent agency action. Both logic and record evidence point to the opposite conclusion. As Plaintiffs’ counsel noted at oral argument, it is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
With respect to the executive orders, which the parties discussed at length during oral argument, the court remains unconvinced. Defendants’ counsel cited provisions of the executive orders referenced in M-25-13 that purportedly required temporary pauses in funding. Id. It is true that at least some of the executive orders contain language that could be construed as requiring fund pauses (albeit on much more drawn out timelines than memorandum M-25-13). See Exec. Order No. 14,151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025) (requiring all federal agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, . . . ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts” within sixty days); Exec. Order No. 14,162, Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, 90 Fed. Reg. 8455 (Jan. 20, 2025) (directing the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to “immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment made by the United States under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”). But Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the scope of frozen funds appears to extend far beyond the reach of the executive orders, thus undermining Defendants’ claims.
As just one example, a health center that provides medical, dental, and behavioral health services to a rural community was denied access to grant funds. See ECF No. 24-4. None of the seven executive orders listed in memorandum M-25-13 would seem to cover such activity. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 14,159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing illegal immigration); Exec. Order No. 14,169, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing foreign aid); Exec. Order No. 14,162, Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, 90 Fed. Reg. 8455 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing international environmental agreements); Exec. Order No. 14,154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing energy industry and regulations); Exec. Order No. 14,151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs); Exec. Order No. 14,168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025) (addressing “gender ideology”); Exec. Order No. 14,182, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, 90 Fed. Reg. 8751 (Jan. 24, 2025) (addressing federal funding of abortion). At oral argument, when asked about another declarant who was receiving a grant from the National Science Foundation, see ECF No. 24-7, Defendants could not give a clear answer as to why that recipient would be denied funds pursuant to the executive orders, Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). In sum, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that rescinding memorandum M-25-13 did not moot the case.
* * *
For these reasons, the court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaint.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:13 am
Part 2 of 2
B. Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy meant to prevent serious and imminent harm in dire circumstances. To obtain one, “the moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
These four considerations are factors, not elements. “A district court must ‘balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas.’” Id. (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). When a government entity is a party to the case, the third and fourth factors merge. Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), courts in this circuit tended to employ a “sliding scale” method in which “a strong showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011). While the D.C. Circuit has considered abandoning the sliding-scale method for one that treats the substantial likelihood prong as “an independent, free-standing requirement,” id. at 393, it has yet to decide one way or the other, see Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022). At the very least, however, the plaintiff must present a “serious legal question on the merits.” Raimondo, 40 F.4th at 726 (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398). Given the ambiguity with respect to the sliding-scale approach, the court will consider all factors and only delve into their relevant weight if it would affect the outcome. See Costa v. Bazron, 456 F. Supp. 3d 126, 133 (D.D.C. 2020).
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The parties break this factor into several subcomponents, but the court only needs to address two at this stage. First, they dispute whether memorandum M-25-13 is final agency action subject to judicial review. If it is not, then Plaintiffs’ APA claims cannot proceed. Second, they debate the merits of Plaintiffs’ three separate claims. While the parties discussed all three claims in their briefs and at oral argument, the court only needs to find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on one in order for this factor to weigh in favor of a TRO.6 See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C.), appeal filed, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The court will therefore focus on Plaintiffs’ assertion that OMB’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.
a. Final agency action
The APA only permits judicial review of “final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, which is action that “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and determines “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (first quoting Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948), then quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 (1970)). The APA does not allow a court to review an agency’s “day-to-day operations.” Lujan, 497 U.S. at 899.
Defendants argue that the memorandum simply told agencies to conduct their own review of financial disbursements and thus “did not determine legal consequences.” 7 ECF No. 26, at 12. This characterization, however, is in tension with the language of the memorandum and the facts on the ground. Defendants’ assertion that the memorandum “did not itself determine which funds or grants should be paused” is true, but not in a way that helps them. Memorandum M-25-13 did not specify certain funds to be frozen; it froze all of them. Rather than give the agencies full control over what to freeze and what to leave undisturbed, Defendants mandated that all “Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2 (second emphasis added). That is not merely a guidance. It is a directive that immediately produced legal consequences across the entire federal funding system.
Defendants’ cited cases do not help them. In Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006), for example, an agency’s strategy to justify a larger budget was not final agency action because it “d[id] not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything,” id. at 22 (quoting Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Memorandum M-25-13, however, commanded agencies to pause all funding obligations within twenty-four hours. In Village of Bensenville v. Federal Aviation Administration, 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006), an agency’s letter of intent proposing a reimbursement schedule was not final agency action because the reimbursement recipient still needed to file additional documents before the money could be disbursed, id. at 69. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that open awards—ones that have already been approved and partially disbursed—were shut down in response to M-25-13. And in Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006), an agency’s policy guideline was not final agency action because it “[did] not command[], require[], order[], or dictate[]” anything, id. at 809. It simply made general recommendations that manufacturers could choose to follow. Id. The agency’s own officials were not even bound to the letter of the recommendation; they “remained free to exercise discretion” in any tasks implicated by the guideline. Id. M-25-13, in contrast, did not merely suggest that agencies temporarily suspend grants; it announced that agencies “must” do so.
A true “guidance” might have advised federal agencies to conduct independent reviews and pause funds as necessary. But M-25-13 did not condition any such pause in this way. It said that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance” while such review was still ongoing. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2 (second emphasis added). By any measure, Defendants’ action led to legal consequences and constituted final agency action.
b. Whether OMB’s actions were arbitrary and capricious
Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). To pass muster, the agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including ‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Agency action is generally deemed unlawful if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id.
Plaintiffs allege that OMB’s funding freeze lacked any reasonable basis and failed to consider the disastrous effects it would have. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 43-48. Defendants, meanwhile, insist that “there is nothing irrational about a temporary pause in funding” when it is done “to ensure compliance with the President’s priorities.” ECF No. 21-1, at 22. But furthering the President’s wishes cannot be a blank check for OMB to do as it pleases. The APA requires a rational connection between the facts, the agency’s rationale, and the ultimate decision. Defendants have offered no rational explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance—with less than twenty-four-hours’ notice—to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1. If Defendants intend to conduct an exhaustive review of what programs should or should not be funded, such a review could be conducted without depriving millions of Americans access to vital resources. As Defendants themselves admit, the memorandum implicated as much as $3 trillion in financial assistance. That is a breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight. Rather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision. To say that OMB “failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” would be putting it mildly.
Defendants also ignored significant reliance interests in deciding to freeze federal funds on such a massive scale. While “unidentified and unproven reliance interests are not a valid basis on which to undo agency action,” Solenex LLC v. Bernhardt, 962 F.3d 520, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added), Plaintiffs have marshalled considerable evidence showing that countless organizations depend on continued disbursements to continue functioning at all. For at least some of Plaintiffs’ members, having federal funds arrive on time and as scheduled is vital.8 See ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶¶ 4, 6 (explaining that federal grants cover roughly 30% of the organization’s payroll and that disbursements are ordinarily so consistent that funds are paid to employees within a week of receipt); 24-5 ¶ 13 (explaining that a tribal organization relied so heavily on consistent disbursements that it was forced to lay off two employees as soon as the pause began on January 28). Unlike the district court in Solenex, the court here makes no assumptions about reliance interests. Those interests, as illustrated through Plaintiffs’ declarations, are all too real.
In addition, Defendants’ actions appear to suffer from infirmities of a constitutional magnitude. The appropriation of the government’s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch. And a wealth of legal authority supports this fundamental separation of powers. The legislature’s “power of the purse is the ultimate check on the . . . power of the Executive.” U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53, 76 (D.D.C. 2015). The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution gives Congress “exclusive power” over federal spending. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 665 F.3d 1339, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180, 185 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). Without it, “the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation[] and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.” Id. at 1347 (quoting 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1342, at 213-14 (1833)). Indeed, the Clause “was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive [Branch].” Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937).
Congress has exercised its plenary power to give meaning to the Appropriations Clause and “reinforce [its] control over appropriated funds.” Id. In 1982, Congress enacted the “Purpose Statute,” which requires the appropriation of federal funds in accordance with “the objects for which . . . [they] were made.” 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Any “reappropriation and diversion of the unexpended balance of an appropriation for a purpose other than that for which [it] originally was made” is treated “as a new appropriation.” Id. § 1301(b). Related laws expressly prohibit the Executive Branch from encroaching on Congress’s appropriations power. See id. §§ 1341, 1350. Most notably, the Impoundment Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq., lays out specific procedures whenever the President wishes to suspend appropriations that have already been enacted.
Defendants’ actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a “bulwark of the Constitution” by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347. OMB ordered a nationwide freeze on pre-existing financial commitments without considering any of the specifics of the individual loans, grants, or funds. It did not indicate when that freeze would end (if it was to end at all). And it attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it. If Defendants’ actions violated the separation of powers, that would certainly be arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
At this stage, Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their arbitrary and capricious claim.
2. Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury is “a high standard.” England, 454 F.3d at 297. First, the injury “must be both certain and great,” “actual and not theoretical,” and “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief.” Id. (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). Second, the injury “must be beyond remediation,” meaning that “[t]he possibility [of] adequate compensatory or other corrective relief . . . at a later date . . . weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Id. at 297-98 (quoting Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674). Plaintiffs easily meet their burden here.
“[O]bstacles [that] unquestionably make it more difficult for the [plaintiff] to accomplish [its] primary mission . . . provide injury for purposes . . . [of] irreparable harm.” League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2016). While ordinary economic injuries are usually insufficient, financial harm can “constitute irreparable harm . . . where the loss threatens the very existence of the movant’s business.” Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674.
If the freeze were to remain in effect, Plaintiffs’ members will suffer “existential injuries” and some programs may “simply disappear.” ECF No. 5-1, at 12. Their workers may be unable to pay for housing or food. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“A lot of our staff live paycheck to paycheck, and if they can’t get paid, then they are unable to pay rent or buy groceries.”). Some have already been forced to “shutter [their] programs” just to make payroll. ECF No. 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. And patients or customers that rely on their services may be denied care when it is most needed. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 16; 24-5 ¶ 21. For some, these are harms for which “there can be no do over and no redress.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 9 (quoting League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014)); see ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“[I]f my Health Center loses physicians, dentist, or nurse practitioners, then it will be virtually impossible to recruit replacements to a rural Health System that is suddenly an unreliable source of income.”).
Some of these organizations are still waiting for funds to be disbursed. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 11; 24-6 ¶ 18; 24-8 ¶ 10-11. In the meantime, they’ve been forced to dismiss employees, cut essential programs, and pay workers out of their own pockets. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 12; 24-5 ¶ 13; 24-7 ¶ 21; 24-8 ¶ 12. Each day that the pause continues to ripple across the country is an additional day that Americans are being denied access to programs that heal them, house them, and feed them. Because the funding freeze threatens the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing irreparable harm.9
3. Prejudice and Public Interest
The declarations and evidence presented by Plaintiffs paint a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze. Organizations with every conceivable mission—healthcare, scientific research, emergency shelters, and more—were shut out of funding portals or denied critical resources beginning on January 28. See ECF Nos. 24-4, 24-5, 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9, 24-10, 24-11. For many, the chaos began well before 5:00 p.m. as various agencies—themselves scrambling to figure out how to comply with memorandum M-25-13—began taking their funding apparatuses offline. ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. The directors of the recipient organizations were forced to take drastic measures. Some tried desperately for hours to log into their grant accounts, while others prepared for the worst by laying off employees. Many of the organizations rely on federal funding to pay their workers, meaning that the freeze forced them to send staff home or close their doors.
The potential scope of the freeze is as great as $3 trillion and its effects are difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs point to news reports detailing far-reaching effects: preschools could not pay their staff; Los Angeles and North Carolina were denied disaster relief aid; and elderly Americans who relied on subsidized programs for food did not know if their next meal would come. ECF No. 24, at 41. The court concludes that the balance of the equities and public interest heavily favor granting Plaintiffs’ request.10
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s temporary restraining order to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed. The written notice shall instruct those agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal Funds under all open awards. It shall also instruct those agencies to release any disbursements on open awards that were paused due to OMB Memorandum M-25-13; it is further
ORDERED that this Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report on or before February 7, 2025, apprising the court of the status of its compliance with this Order, including by providing a copy of the written notice described above; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report proposing a preliminary injunction briefing schedule on or before February 7, 2025.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 3, 2025
_______________
Notes:
1 The court issued the administrative stay from the bench shortly before 5:00 p.m., when the “temporary pause” of federal funding was set to take effect. Transcript of Emergency Hearing, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
2 Defendants do not contest prongs (b) or (c). See ECF No. 24, at 18 n.11.
3 Plaintiffs submitted most of these declarations alongside their reply in support of the TRO motion, ECF No. 24, and submitted an additional declaration the evening of February 2, 2025, ECF No. 27. While such declarations should normally be filed concurrently with the complaint, any delay in compiling these materials is entirely of Defendants’ own making. OMB issued memorandum M-25-13 less than twenty-four hours before it was set to take effect. Plaintiffs can hardly be blamed for needing more than a single morning and afternoon to submit critical evidence under exigent circumstances. Defendants object to one of the declarations, “Exhibit F,” ECF No. 24-6, because it came from a party that only joined one of the Plaintiff coalitions after the lawsuit was filed. Because standing “is assessed as of the time a suit commences,” Chamber of Commerce, 642 F.3d at 200, the court will not consider Exhibit F as part of its standing analysis. The court may, however, consider Exhibit F for purposes of assessing mootness because mootness asks whether post-complaint events impact the court’s jurisdiction. See Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship & Immgr. Servs., 168 F. Supp. 3d 50, 65 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that standing “is concerned with the presence of injury, causation, and redressability at the time a complaint is filed,” whereas mootness “scrutinizes the presence of these elements after filing—i.e., at the time of a court’s decision”).
4 Based on Plaintiffs’ representations at oral argument, this relief would only apply to open awards that have been affected by OMB’s directive. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
5 The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island had yet to enter a TRO at the time of the Press Secretary’s social media post, so the post could not have been referring to that case. See TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50.
6 Although two of Plaintiffs’ claims are not critical to the court’s ruling at this juncture, the parties will have the opportunity to further develop all three claims as this case proceeds. Even so, the court notes that Plaintiffs have shown some likelihood of success—or, at the very least, “a ‘serious legal question’ on the merits,” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398—on their remaining claims. There is substantial room for debate as to whether OMB’s authorizing statute, 31 U.S.C. § 503, permits it to order the kind of sweeping, nationwide directive that it commanded here. And while Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,” Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), it is less clear whether it may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints.
7 In their briefs, Defendants only seem to challenge whether the memorandum determined “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow,” and not whether it marked the “consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking.” See ECF No. 24, at 22.
8 The court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ assertion that reliance interests only apply to the receipt of funds but not the timing of when they are received. ECF No. 21-1, at 23. Such a claim is without legal support and defies logic. If an organization is unable to meet payroll, that could immediately prevent its employees from paying rent or affording groceries. Similarly, if a clinic is forced to shut its doors and turn away patients, that produces instant harm that cannot be remedied by a later resumption of funds.
9 At oral argument, Defendants asserted that the TRO issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island undermined Plaintiffs’ claims of irreparable harm. The government defendants in that case understood the TRO to apply to “all awards or obligations—not just those involving the Plaintiff States.” Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, Ex. A, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51-1, at 1. Even assuming that the Rhode Island TRO applies to Plaintiffs, that would not block this court from entering a TRO of its own. See Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1, 60 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely grant follow-on injunctions against the Government, even in instances when an earlier nationwide injunction has already provided plaintiffs in the later action with their desired relief.”) (collecting cases). This court has no control over the duration or scope of the District of Rhode Island’s TRO. Failing to grant a TRO here when Plaintiffs have met the requirements for one would leave them unprotected and vulnerable to further harm.
10 Defendants also request that the court convert this proceeding into one for a preliminary injunction (rather than a TRO). Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Given that this case was filed less than a week ago, concerns weighty legal issues that require careful consideration, and involves a constantly shifting factual landscape, the court declines Defendants’ request. The parties will be given an opportunity to fully brief and argue Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on a schedule of their choosing.
B. Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy meant to prevent serious and imminent harm in dire circumstances. To obtain one, “the moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
These four considerations are factors, not elements. “A district court must ‘balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas.’” Id. (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). When a government entity is a party to the case, the third and fourth factors merge. Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), courts in this circuit tended to employ a “sliding scale” method in which “a strong showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011). While the D.C. Circuit has considered abandoning the sliding-scale method for one that treats the substantial likelihood prong as “an independent, free-standing requirement,” id. at 393, it has yet to decide one way or the other, see Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022). At the very least, however, the plaintiff must present a “serious legal question on the merits.” Raimondo, 40 F.4th at 726 (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398). Given the ambiguity with respect to the sliding-scale approach, the court will consider all factors and only delve into their relevant weight if it would affect the outcome. See Costa v. Bazron, 456 F. Supp. 3d 126, 133 (D.D.C. 2020).
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The parties break this factor into several subcomponents, but the court only needs to address two at this stage. First, they dispute whether memorandum M-25-13 is final agency action subject to judicial review. If it is not, then Plaintiffs’ APA claims cannot proceed. Second, they debate the merits of Plaintiffs’ three separate claims. While the parties discussed all three claims in their briefs and at oral argument, the court only needs to find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on one in order for this factor to weigh in favor of a TRO.6 See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C.), appeal filed, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The court will therefore focus on Plaintiffs’ assertion that OMB’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.
a. Final agency action
The APA only permits judicial review of “final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, which is action that “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and determines “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (first quoting Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948), then quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 (1970)). The APA does not allow a court to review an agency’s “day-to-day operations.” Lujan, 497 U.S. at 899.
Defendants argue that the memorandum simply told agencies to conduct their own review of financial disbursements and thus “did not determine legal consequences.” 7 ECF No. 26, at 12. This characterization, however, is in tension with the language of the memorandum and the facts on the ground. Defendants’ assertion that the memorandum “did not itself determine which funds or grants should be paused” is true, but not in a way that helps them. Memorandum M-25-13 did not specify certain funds to be frozen; it froze all of them. Rather than give the agencies full control over what to freeze and what to leave undisturbed, Defendants mandated that all “Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2 (second emphasis added). That is not merely a guidance. It is a directive that immediately produced legal consequences across the entire federal funding system.
Defendants’ cited cases do not help them. In Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006), for example, an agency’s strategy to justify a larger budget was not final agency action because it “d[id] not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything,” id. at 22 (quoting Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Memorandum M-25-13, however, commanded agencies to pause all funding obligations within twenty-four hours. In Village of Bensenville v. Federal Aviation Administration, 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006), an agency’s letter of intent proposing a reimbursement schedule was not final agency action because the reimbursement recipient still needed to file additional documents before the money could be disbursed, id. at 69. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that open awards—ones that have already been approved and partially disbursed—were shut down in response to M-25-13. And in Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006), an agency’s policy guideline was not final agency action because it “[did] not command[], require[], order[], or dictate[]” anything, id. at 809. It simply made general recommendations that manufacturers could choose to follow. Id. The agency’s own officials were not even bound to the letter of the recommendation; they “remained free to exercise discretion” in any tasks implicated by the guideline. Id. M-25-13, in contrast, did not merely suggest that agencies temporarily suspend grants; it announced that agencies “must” do so.
A true “guidance” might have advised federal agencies to conduct independent reviews and pause funds as necessary. But M-25-13 did not condition any such pause in this way. It said that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance” while such review was still ongoing. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2 (second emphasis added). By any measure, Defendants’ action led to legal consequences and constituted final agency action.
b. Whether OMB’s actions were arbitrary and capricious
Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). To pass muster, the agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including ‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Agency action is generally deemed unlawful if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id.
Plaintiffs allege that OMB’s funding freeze lacked any reasonable basis and failed to consider the disastrous effects it would have. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 43-48. Defendants, meanwhile, insist that “there is nothing irrational about a temporary pause in funding” when it is done “to ensure compliance with the President’s priorities.” ECF No. 21-1, at 22. But furthering the President’s wishes cannot be a blank check for OMB to do as it pleases. The APA requires a rational connection between the facts, the agency’s rationale, and the ultimate decision. Defendants have offered no rational explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance—with less than twenty-four-hours’ notice—to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1. If Defendants intend to conduct an exhaustive review of what programs should or should not be funded, such a review could be conducted without depriving millions of Americans access to vital resources. As Defendants themselves admit, the memorandum implicated as much as $3 trillion in financial assistance. That is a breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight. Rather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision. To say that OMB “failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” would be putting it mildly.
Defendants also ignored significant reliance interests in deciding to freeze federal funds on such a massive scale. While “unidentified and unproven reliance interests are not a valid basis on which to undo agency action,” Solenex LLC v. Bernhardt, 962 F.3d 520, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added), Plaintiffs have marshalled considerable evidence showing that countless organizations depend on continued disbursements to continue functioning at all. For at least some of Plaintiffs’ members, having federal funds arrive on time and as scheduled is vital.8 See ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶¶ 4, 6 (explaining that federal grants cover roughly 30% of the organization’s payroll and that disbursements are ordinarily so consistent that funds are paid to employees within a week of receipt); 24-5 ¶ 13 (explaining that a tribal organization relied so heavily on consistent disbursements that it was forced to lay off two employees as soon as the pause began on January 28). Unlike the district court in Solenex, the court here makes no assumptions about reliance interests. Those interests, as illustrated through Plaintiffs’ declarations, are all too real.
In addition, Defendants’ actions appear to suffer from infirmities of a constitutional magnitude. The appropriation of the government’s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch. And a wealth of legal authority supports this fundamental separation of powers. The legislature’s “power of the purse is the ultimate check on the . . . power of the Executive.” U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53, 76 (D.D.C. 2015). The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution gives Congress “exclusive power” over federal spending. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 665 F.3d 1339, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180, 185 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). Without it, “the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation[] and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.” Id. at 1347 (quoting 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1342, at 213-14 (1833)). Indeed, the Clause “was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive [Branch].” Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937).
Congress has exercised its plenary power to give meaning to the Appropriations Clause and “reinforce [its] control over appropriated funds.” Id. In 1982, Congress enacted the “Purpose Statute,” which requires the appropriation of federal funds in accordance with “the objects for which . . . [they] were made.” 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Any “reappropriation and diversion of the unexpended balance of an appropriation for a purpose other than that for which [it] originally was made” is treated “as a new appropriation.” Id. § 1301(b). Related laws expressly prohibit the Executive Branch from encroaching on Congress’s appropriations power. See id. §§ 1341, 1350. Most notably, the Impoundment Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq., lays out specific procedures whenever the President wishes to suspend appropriations that have already been enacted.
Defendants’ actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a “bulwark of the Constitution” by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347. OMB ordered a nationwide freeze on pre-existing financial commitments without considering any of the specifics of the individual loans, grants, or funds. It did not indicate when that freeze would end (if it was to end at all). And it attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it. If Defendants’ actions violated the separation of powers, that would certainly be arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
At this stage, Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their arbitrary and capricious claim.
2. Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury is “a high standard.” England, 454 F.3d at 297. First, the injury “must be both certain and great,” “actual and not theoretical,” and “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief.” Id. (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). Second, the injury “must be beyond remediation,” meaning that “[t]he possibility [of] adequate compensatory or other corrective relief . . . at a later date . . . weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Id. at 297-98 (quoting Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674). Plaintiffs easily meet their burden here.
“[O]bstacles [that] unquestionably make it more difficult for the [plaintiff] to accomplish [its] primary mission . . . provide injury for purposes . . . [of] irreparable harm.” League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2016). While ordinary economic injuries are usually insufficient, financial harm can “constitute irreparable harm . . . where the loss threatens the very existence of the movant’s business.” Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674.
If the freeze were to remain in effect, Plaintiffs’ members will suffer “existential injuries” and some programs may “simply disappear.” ECF No. 5-1, at 12. Their workers may be unable to pay for housing or food. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“A lot of our staff live paycheck to paycheck, and if they can’t get paid, then they are unable to pay rent or buy groceries.”). Some have already been forced to “shutter [their] programs” just to make payroll. ECF No. 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. And patients or customers that rely on their services may be denied care when it is most needed. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 16; 24-5 ¶ 21. For some, these are harms for which “there can be no do over and no redress.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 9 (quoting League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014)); see ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“[I]f my Health Center loses physicians, dentist, or nurse practitioners, then it will be virtually impossible to recruit replacements to a rural Health System that is suddenly an unreliable source of income.”).
Some of these organizations are still waiting for funds to be disbursed. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 11; 24-6 ¶ 18; 24-8 ¶ 10-11. In the meantime, they’ve been forced to dismiss employees, cut essential programs, and pay workers out of their own pockets. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 12; 24-5 ¶ 13; 24-7 ¶ 21; 24-8 ¶ 12. Each day that the pause continues to ripple across the country is an additional day that Americans are being denied access to programs that heal them, house them, and feed them. Because the funding freeze threatens the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing irreparable harm.9
3. Prejudice and Public Interest
The declarations and evidence presented by Plaintiffs paint a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze. Organizations with every conceivable mission—healthcare, scientific research, emergency shelters, and more—were shut out of funding portals or denied critical resources beginning on January 28. See ECF Nos. 24-4, 24-5, 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9, 24-10, 24-11. For many, the chaos began well before 5:00 p.m. as various agencies—themselves scrambling to figure out how to comply with memorandum M-25-13—began taking their funding apparatuses offline. ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. The directors of the recipient organizations were forced to take drastic measures. Some tried desperately for hours to log into their grant accounts, while others prepared for the worst by laying off employees. Many of the organizations rely on federal funding to pay their workers, meaning that the freeze forced them to send staff home or close their doors.
The potential scope of the freeze is as great as $3 trillion and its effects are difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs point to news reports detailing far-reaching effects: preschools could not pay their staff; Los Angeles and North Carolina were denied disaster relief aid; and elderly Americans who relied on subsidized programs for food did not know if their next meal would come. ECF No. 24, at 41. The court concludes that the balance of the equities and public interest heavily favor granting Plaintiffs’ request.10
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s temporary restraining order to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed. The written notice shall instruct those agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal Funds under all open awards. It shall also instruct those agencies to release any disbursements on open awards that were paused due to OMB Memorandum M-25-13; it is further
ORDERED that this Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report on or before February 7, 2025, apprising the court of the status of its compliance with this Order, including by providing a copy of the written notice described above; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report proposing a preliminary injunction briefing schedule on or before February 7, 2025.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 3, 2025
_______________
Notes:
1 The court issued the administrative stay from the bench shortly before 5:00 p.m., when the “temporary pause” of federal funding was set to take effect. Transcript of Emergency Hearing, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
2 Defendants do not contest prongs (b) or (c). See ECF No. 24, at 18 n.11.
3 Plaintiffs submitted most of these declarations alongside their reply in support of the TRO motion, ECF No. 24, and submitted an additional declaration the evening of February 2, 2025, ECF No. 27. While such declarations should normally be filed concurrently with the complaint, any delay in compiling these materials is entirely of Defendants’ own making. OMB issued memorandum M-25-13 less than twenty-four hours before it was set to take effect. Plaintiffs can hardly be blamed for needing more than a single morning and afternoon to submit critical evidence under exigent circumstances. Defendants object to one of the declarations, “Exhibit F,” ECF No. 24-6, because it came from a party that only joined one of the Plaintiff coalitions after the lawsuit was filed. Because standing “is assessed as of the time a suit commences,” Chamber of Commerce, 642 F.3d at 200, the court will not consider Exhibit F as part of its standing analysis. The court may, however, consider Exhibit F for purposes of assessing mootness because mootness asks whether post-complaint events impact the court’s jurisdiction. See Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship & Immgr. Servs., 168 F. Supp. 3d 50, 65 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that standing “is concerned with the presence of injury, causation, and redressability at the time a complaint is filed,” whereas mootness “scrutinizes the presence of these elements after filing—i.e., at the time of a court’s decision”).
4 Based on Plaintiffs’ representations at oral argument, this relief would only apply to open awards that have been affected by OMB’s directive. Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
5 The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island had yet to enter a TRO at the time of the Press Secretary’s social media post, so the post could not have been referring to that case. See TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50.
6 Although two of Plaintiffs’ claims are not critical to the court’s ruling at this juncture, the parties will have the opportunity to further develop all three claims as this case proceeds. Even so, the court notes that Plaintiffs have shown some likelihood of success—or, at the very least, “a ‘serious legal question’ on the merits,” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398—on their remaining claims. There is substantial room for debate as to whether OMB’s authorizing statute, 31 U.S.C. § 503, permits it to order the kind of sweeping, nationwide directive that it commanded here. And while Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,” Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), it is less clear whether it may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints.
7 In their briefs, Defendants only seem to challenge whether the memorandum determined “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow,” and not whether it marked the “consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking.” See ECF No. 24, at 22.
8 The court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ assertion that reliance interests only apply to the receipt of funds but not the timing of when they are received. ECF No. 21-1, at 23. Such a claim is without legal support and defies logic. If an organization is unable to meet payroll, that could immediately prevent its employees from paying rent or affording groceries. Similarly, if a clinic is forced to shut its doors and turn away patients, that produces instant harm that cannot be remedied by a later resumption of funds.
9 At oral argument, Defendants asserted that the TRO issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island undermined Plaintiffs’ claims of irreparable harm. The government defendants in that case understood the TRO to apply to “all awards or obligations—not just those involving the Plaintiff States.” Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, Ex. A, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51-1, at 1. Even assuming that the Rhode Island TRO applies to Plaintiffs, that would not block this court from entering a TRO of its own. See Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1, 60 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely grant follow-on injunctions against the Government, even in instances when an earlier nationwide injunction has already provided plaintiffs in the later action with their desired relief.”) (collecting cases). This court has no control over the duration or scope of the District of Rhode Island’s TRO. Failing to grant a TRO here when Plaintiffs have met the requirements for one would leave them unprotected and vulnerable to further harm.
10 Defendants also request that the court convert this proceeding into one for a preliminary injunction (rather than a TRO). Oral Argument, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Given that this case was filed less than a week ago, concerns weighty legal issues that require careful consideration, and involves a constantly shifting factual landscape, the court declines Defendants’ request. The parties will be given an opportunity to fully brief and argue Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on a schedule of their choosing.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:26 am
OMB Memorandum for Heads of Executed Departments and Agencies: Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs. ]"The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars; this memorandum requires Federal agencies to identify and review all Federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements... Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits."]
by Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
1/27/25
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
THE DIRECTOR
January 27, 2025
M-25-13
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
SUBJECT: Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs
The American people elected Donald J. Trump to be President of the United States and gave him a mandate to increase the impact of every federal taxpayer dollar. In Fiscal Year 2024, of the nearly $10 trillion that the Federal Government spent, more than $3 trillion was Federal financial assistance, such as grants and loans. Career and political appointees in the Executive Branch have a duty to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities. Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending “wokeness” and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. 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.
This memorandum requires Federal agencies to identify and review all Federal financial assistance1 programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements.2 For example, during the initial days of his Administration, President Donald J. Trump issued a series of executive orders to protect the American people and safeguard valuable taxpayer resources, including Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025), Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025), Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025), Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025), Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025), and Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025). These executive orders ensure that Federal funds are used to support hardworking American families.
To implement these orders, each agency must complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders. In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.
This temporary pause will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President’s priorities. The temporary pause will become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Even before completing their comprehensive analysis, Federal agencies must immediately identify any legally mandated actions or deadlines for assistance programs arising while the pause remains in effect. Federal agencies must report this information to OMB along with an analysis of the requirement. OMB also directs Federal agencies to pause all activities associated with open NOFOs, such as conducting merit review panels.
No later than February 10, 2025, agencies shall submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects or activities subject to this pause. Each agency must pause: (i) issuance of new awards; (ii) disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; and (iii) other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, to the extent permissible by law, until OMB has reviewed and provided guidance to your agency with respect to the information submitted.
OMB may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis. To the extent required by law, Federal agencies may continue taking certain administrative actions, such as closeout of Federal awards (2 CFR 200.344), or recording obligations expressly required by law.
Additionally, agencies must, for each Federal financial assistance program: (i) assign responsibility and oversight to a senior political appointee to ensure Federal financial assistance conforms to Administration priorities; (ii) review currently pending Federal financial assistance announcements to ensure Administration priorities are addressed, and, subject to program statutory authority, modify unpublished Federal financial assistance announcements, withdraw any announcements already published, and, to the extent permissible by law, cancel awards already awarded that are in conflict with Administration priorities, and; (iii) ensure adequate oversight of Federal financial assistance programs and initiate investigations when warranted to identify underperforming recipients, and address identified issues up to and including cancellation of awards.
_______________
Notes
1 2 CFR 200.1 defines Federal financial assistance to mean “[a]ssistance that recipients or subrecipients receive or administer” in various forms, but this term does not include assistance provided directly to individuals. For the purposes of this memorandum, Federal financial assistance includes: (i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 CFR 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.
2 Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.
by Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
1/27/25
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
THE DIRECTOR
January 27, 2025
M-25-13
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
SUBJECT: Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs
The American people elected Donald J. Trump to be President of the United States and gave him a mandate to increase the impact of every federal taxpayer dollar. In Fiscal Year 2024, of the nearly $10 trillion that the Federal Government spent, more than $3 trillion was Federal financial assistance, such as grants and loans. Career and political appointees in the Executive Branch have a duty to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities. Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending “wokeness” and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. 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.
This memorandum requires Federal agencies to identify and review all Federal financial assistance1 programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements.2 For example, during the initial days of his Administration, President Donald J. Trump issued a series of executive orders to protect the American people and safeguard valuable taxpayer resources, including Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025), Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025), Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025), Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025), Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025), and Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025). These executive orders ensure that Federal funds are used to support hardworking American families.
To implement these orders, each agency must complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders. In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.
This temporary pause will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President’s priorities. The temporary pause will become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Even before completing their comprehensive analysis, Federal agencies must immediately identify any legally mandated actions or deadlines for assistance programs arising while the pause remains in effect. Federal agencies must report this information to OMB along with an analysis of the requirement. OMB also directs Federal agencies to pause all activities associated with open NOFOs, such as conducting merit review panels.
No later than February 10, 2025, agencies shall submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects or activities subject to this pause. Each agency must pause: (i) issuance of new awards; (ii) disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; and (iii) other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, to the extent permissible by law, until OMB has reviewed and provided guidance to your agency with respect to the information submitted.
OMB may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis. To the extent required by law, Federal agencies may continue taking certain administrative actions, such as closeout of Federal awards (2 CFR 200.344), or recording obligations expressly required by law.
Additionally, agencies must, for each Federal financial assistance program: (i) assign responsibility and oversight to a senior political appointee to ensure Federal financial assistance conforms to Administration priorities; (ii) review currently pending Federal financial assistance announcements to ensure Administration priorities are addressed, and, subject to program statutory authority, modify unpublished Federal financial assistance announcements, withdraw any announcements already published, and, to the extent permissible by law, cancel awards already awarded that are in conflict with Administration priorities, and; (iii) ensure adequate oversight of Federal financial assistance programs and initiate investigations when warranted to identify underperforming recipients, and address identified issues up to and including cancellation of awards.
_______________
Notes
1 2 CFR 200.1 defines Federal financial assistance to mean “[a]ssistance that recipients or subrecipients receive or administer” in various forms, but this term does not include assistance provided directly to individuals. For the purposes of this memorandum, Federal financial assistance includes: (i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 CFR 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.
2 Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:10 am
Donald J. Trump tweets he had friendly conversation with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico; "We agreed to immediately pause anticipated tariffs for one month of negotiations."
by Donald J. Trump
2/3/25
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I just spoke with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico. It was a very friendly conversation wherein she agreed to immediately supply 10,000 Mexican Soldiers on the Border separating Mexico and the United States. These soldiers will be specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country. We further agreed to immediately pause the anticipated tariffs for a one month period during which we will have negotiations headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and high-level Representatives of Mexico. I look forward to participating in those negotiations, with President Sheinbaum, as we attempt to achieve a “deal” between our two Countries.
Feb 03, 2025, 8:41 AM
*****************
Donald J. Trump tweets about friendly conversation with Pres. Trudeau of Canada; "Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured."
by Donald J. Trump
2/3/25
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Canada has agreed to ensure we have a secure Northern Border, and to finally end the deadly scourge of drugs like Fentanyl that have been pouring into our Country, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, while destroying their families and communities all across our Country.
Canada will implement their $1.3 Billion Border plan, and as per Prime Minister Trudeau, will be, “reinforcing the Border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are, and will be, working on protecting the Border. In addition, Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the Border, launch a Canada-U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl, and we will be backing it with $200 million.”
As President, it is my responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL Americans, and I am doing just that. I am very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured. FAIRNESS FOR ALL!
Feb 03, 2025, 2:57 PM
by Donald J. Trump
2/3/25
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I just spoke with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico. It was a very friendly conversation wherein she agreed to immediately supply 10,000 Mexican Soldiers on the Border separating Mexico and the United States. These soldiers will be specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country. We further agreed to immediately pause the anticipated tariffs for a one month period during which we will have negotiations headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and high-level Representatives of Mexico. I look forward to participating in those negotiations, with President Sheinbaum, as we attempt to achieve a “deal” between our two Countries.
Feb 03, 2025, 8:41 AM
*****************
Donald J. Trump tweets about friendly conversation with Pres. Trudeau of Canada; "Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured."
by Donald J. Trump
2/3/25
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Canada has agreed to ensure we have a secure Northern Border, and to finally end the deadly scourge of drugs like Fentanyl that have been pouring into our Country, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, while destroying their families and communities all across our Country.
Canada will implement their $1.3 Billion Border plan, and as per Prime Minister Trudeau, will be, “reinforcing the Border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are, and will be, working on protecting the Border. In addition, Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the Border, launch a Canada-U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl, and we will be backing it with $200 million.”
As President, it is my responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL Americans, and I am doing just that. I am very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured. FAIRNESS FOR ALL!
Feb 03, 2025, 2:57 PM
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:31 am
TRUMP LOST. Vote Suppression Won. Here are the numbers from investigative reporter Greg Palast...
by Greg Palast
The Hartmann Report
Jan 24, 2025
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost ... on-won-c6f
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
Stay with me and I’ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.
But if you’re expecting a sexy story about Elon Musk messing with vote-counting software from outer space, sorry, you won’t get that here.
As in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and in too many other miscarriages of Democracy, this election was determined by good old “vote suppression,” the polite term we use for shafting people of color out of their ballot. We used to call it Jim Crow.
Here are key numbers:
— 4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
— By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed “vigilante” voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters. The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
— No fewer than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
— At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified.
— 1,216,000 “provisional” ballots were rejected, not counted.
— 3.24 million new registrations were rejected or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.
If the purges, challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.
There are also the uncountable effects of the explosive growth of voter intimidation tactics including the bomb threats that closed 31 polling stations in Atlanta on Election Day.
America’s Nasty Little Secret
The nasty little secret of American democracy is that we don’t count all the votes. Nor let every citizen vote.
In 2024, especially, after an avalanche of new not-going-to-let-you-vote laws passed in almost every red state, the number of citizens Jim Crow’d out of their vote soared into the millions. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, since the 2020 election, “At least 30 states enacted 78 restrictive laws” to blockade voting. The race-targeted laws ran the gamut from shuttering drop boxes in Black-majority cities to, for the first time, allowing non-government self-appointed “vote fraud vigilantes” to challenge voters by the hundreds of thousands.
Throughout election seasons, The New York Times and NPR and establishment media write stories and editorials decrying vote suppression tactics, from new ID requirements to new restrictions on mail-in voting. But, notably, the mainstream press never, ever, not once, will say that these ugly racist attacks on voters changed the outcome of an election.
Question: If these vote suppression laws—notorious example: Georgia’s SB 202—had no effect on election outcomes, then why did GOP legislators fight so hard to pass these laws? The answer is clear on the Brennan Center’s map of states that passed restrictive laws. It’s pretty much Trump’s victory map.
States that have enacted restrictive voting laws, 2021-24
America Goes Postal
Let’s look at just one vote suppression operation in action.
In 2020, during the pandemic, America went postal. More than 43% of us voted by mail.
But it wasn’t easy. Harris County, Texas, home of Houston, tried to mail out ballots during the Covid epidemic on the grounds that voters shouldn’t die waiting in lines at polling stations. But then, the state’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton stopped this life-saving measure.
Why wouldn’t this GOP official let Houstonians vote safely? Maybe it’s because Houston has the largest number of Black voters of any city in America. Indeed, on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Paxton proudly stated, “Had we not done that [stopped Houston from sending out ballots], Donald Trump would've lost the election” in Texas. Texas!
Before the 2024 election, prompted by Trump’s evidence-free attack on mail-in ballots as inherently fraudulent, 22 states, according to the Brennan Center, imposed “38 new restrictions on the ability to vote absentee that were not in place in 2020…likely to most affect or already have disproportionately affected voters of color.” You’re shocked, right?
Texas’ requirement to add ID numbers to an absentee ballot caused the rejection rate to jump from 1% to 12%.
So, here’s the question we need to ask. If restrictions on mail-in balloting swung Texas to Trump, how did all these new restrictions affect the outcome of the vote in other states?
In 2020, an NPR study found the mail-in ballot rejection rate hit 13.8% during the Democratic primaries—a loss of one in seven ballots.
Take Georgia, where the Palast Investigative Fund spent months in on-the-ground investigations.
Here are photos of a Georgia voter, career military officer and Pentagon advisor Major Gamaliel Turner (Ret), demonstrating for young voters how to fill out an absentee ballot, emphasizing that it must be mailed in promptly. He did, seven days before the deadline. But we only recently learned that Georgia officials disqualified his ballot as received too late.
Major Gamaliel Turner (now retired) about to mail in his absentee ballot. The state of Georgia rejected it. (Photo: Palast Investigative Fund 2024.)
In 2008, even before the majority of Democrats began voting by mail, when absentee balloting was much rarer, the federal government reported 488,136 mail-in ballots were rejected, almost all on picayune grounds (i.e. middle initial on signature missing etc.). An MIT study put the number of rejected mail-in ballots at 2.9%.
That’s the low-end of MIT’s estimate of mail-in ballots tossed out. Charles Stewart, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, author of the report, notes mail-in ballots requested and never received nor returned could raise the total mail-in ballot loss rate to 21%.
For 2024, that would total 14.1 million ballots that, effectively, vanished from the count.
The “failure to return” ballot was exacerbated in this election by the steep cut in ballot drop boxes, a method favored by urban (read, “Democratic”) voters. Black voters in Atlanta used ballot drop boxes extensively because they feared, with good reason, relying on the Post Office [see Major Turner’s story above].
In response, the Republican Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, signed SB 202 which slashed the number of drop boxes by 75% only in Black-majority counties and locked them away at night. These moves slashed mail-in and drop box balloting, used by the majority of Democrats in 2020, by nearly 90% in the 2024 race.
Even if deemed “on time,” ballots still face rejection. Marietta, Georgia, first-time voter Andrian Consonery Jr. told me his mail-in ballot was rejected because his signature supposedly didn’t match that on his registration. (I needn’t add, Consonery is Black.) In effect, Consonery was accused of forgery—a federal crime--not by the FBI but by self-appointed amateur sleuths. This challenge to mail-in ballots, part of a right-wing campaign, has gone viral.
Georgian Adrian Consonery Jr.’s mail-in ballot was challenged because of a false claim that his signature was forged. Photo: Zach D. Roberts for the Palast Investigative Fund (2024)
In 2020, the federal government reported that 157,477 ballots were rejected for supposedly “mis-matched” signatures. That’s quite a crime wave—but without criminals.
And that’s before we get to the dozens of other attacks on voting that were freshly minted for the 2024 election, attacks aimed at voters of color.
The crucial statistic is that not everyone’s ballot gets disqualified. One study done for the United States Civil Rights Commission found that a Black person, such as Maj. Turner, will be 900% more likely to have their mail-in or in-person ballot disqualified than a white voter.
Now, let’s do some arithmetic. If we take the lowest end of the MIT ballot rejection rate, and only a tenth of the “lost” ballot rate, and then apply it to the number of mail-in and drop-box ballots, we can conservatively estimate that 2,121,000 mail-in votes went into the electoral dumpster.
Whose ballots? Democrats are 51% more likely than Republicans to vote by mail; and, given the racial disparity in ballot rejections, Trump’s swing-state margins begin to look shaky.
The KKK Plan and the New Vigilantes
In 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund uncovered a whole new way to bring Jim Crow back to life: challenges to a citizen’s right to vote by a posse of self-proclaimed vote-fraud hunters.
Four years ago, the GOP took this new suppression method out for a test ride in Georgia when 88 Republican operatives—remember, these are not government officials — challenged the rights of over180,000 Georgians to have their ballots counted. These vigilantes based their scheme on the program originally used by the Ku Klux Klan in 1946.
One challenged voter: Major Turner, the same voter whose mail-in ballot was disqualified in a later election.
In 2020, the Major’s ballot was challenged by the county Chairman of the Republican Party in Southern Georgia, Alton Russell. (Russell likes to dress up as infamous vigilante Doc Holliday, with a loaded six-gun in a holster.) In a (polite) confrontation we filmed between the Major and Russell, the GOP honcho admitted he had no evidence that Maj. Turner, nor any of the 4,000 others he challenged, should be denied the right to have their ballots counted.
Note: The Palast Fund contacted a sample of 800 of these challenged voters and found that, overwhelmingly, they were Americans of color.
In 2020, this KKK plan, adopted by the Trump organization, proved its value. In that election, Trump almost won Georgia, falling short by just 11,779 votes—only because local elections officials rejected most of the challenges. But for 2024, the Georgia’s Republican-controlled legislature changed the law to make it very difficult for officials to deny the challenges.
That emboldened the Trump-supported organization True the Vote to roll out the challenge to every swing state. In 2024, True the Vote signed up over 40,000 volunteer vigilantes. The organization crowed proudly that, by August of 2024, they’d already challenged a mind-blowing 317,886 voters in dozens of states. By Election Day this November, True the Vote projected it would have challenged over two million voters. In addition, Trump’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, founded Eagle AI to challenge hundreds of thousands more including in swing state Pennsylvania.
How many voters ultimately lost their ballots? Almost all voting officials we’ve contacted have refused to answer.
Placebo Ballots
Those voters who’d been challenged but mailed in their ballot would be unlikely to know their vote had been lost. Others who showed up in person at a poll would be told they could not vote on a regular ballot. These voters were sent away or forced to vote on a “provisional” ballot.
If you’ve been challenged or find you’ve been purged off the registration rolls, you’ll be offered one of these provisional ballots, paper ballots you place in a special envelope. Typically, you’ll be promised your registration will be checked and then your ballot will be counted. Bullshit. If you’re challenged, unless you personally contact or go into your county clerk’s office with ID and proof of address, your ballot goes into the electoral dumpster.
A better name for a “provisional” ballot would be “placebo” ballot. You think you’ve voted, but chances are, you did not, that is, your ballot wasn’t counted.
Here's an ugly number: According to the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), in 2016, when 2.5 million provisional ballots were cast, a breathtaking 42.3% were never counted.
Think about that. Over a million Americans lost their vote — though, notably, not one was charged with attempting to vote illegally. And that was in 2016, before the vigilante challenges and before millions more had been purged from the rolls leading up to the 2024 election.
And here’s the statistic that matters most. Black, Hispanic or Asian-America voters are 300% more likely than white voters to be shunted to a “placebo” provisional ballot.
The Great Purge and the Poison Postcard
The polite term in government agencies is, “List Maintenance.” It’s best known as The Purge—when voters’ registrations are wiped off the rolls. The EAC keeps track of The Purge. It’s a big business. For example, before the 2022 election, when the data was last available, swing state North Carolina wiped 392,851 voters off the rolls.
The majority of removals were based on questionable, indeed, shockingly faulty information that a voter had moved their residence. I’m not talking about the 4.9 million voters purged because they’re dead, or eight million others whose residential move could be verified, nor those serving time in prison nor those ruled too crazy to vote.
I’m talking about a trick that has been perfected by politicians of both parties to eliminate voters of the wrong persuasion: the Poison Postcard. Here’s how it works: Targeted voters are mailed postcards by state elections officials. (Let’s remember, state voting chiefs, “Secretaries of State,” are almost to a one partisan hacks.) Voters who don’t sign and return the cards, which look like junk mail, will be purged.
The Poison Postcard response rate is close to nothing. In Arizona, according to the EAC, just one in ten postcards are returned. And in Georgia, the vote-saving response is barely above 1%. And that’s the way our partisan voting officials like it.
Were the millions of Americans purged before the 2024 election all fraudsters who should lose their right to vote? Direct marketing expert Mark Swedlund told us, “This only means that most people, especially young people, the poor and voters of color, simply ignore junk mail.”
With the help of Swedlund and the same experts used by Amazon—and believe me, Amazon knows exactly where you live--we took a deep dive into two states’ purge operations for the ACLU.
The state of Georgia had purged hundreds of thousands from the voter rolls on grounds they’d moved from their voting addresses. Our experts, going name by name through Georgia’s purge list, working from special data provided us by the US Postal Service, identified 198,351 Georgians who had been purged for moving had, in fact, not moved an inch from their legal voting address. The state’s only evidence these 198,351 voters had moved? They failed to return the Poison Postcard.
Georgia Voter Roll Purge Errors, by Greg Palast, Sept 1, 2020
In 2020, I testified in federal court for the NAACP and RainbowPUSH, presenting our expert findings to get those voters, overweighted with minorities and young Georgians, back on the rolls. Unfortunately, the Trump’d-up court system now gives huge deference to a state’s voting operations, a trend which first took off in 2013 when the US Supreme Court defenestrated the Voting Rights Act.
The results have been devastating. According to the EAC data, before the 2024 election, 4,776,706 registrants were removed nationwide simply because they failed to return the postcard.
Also in 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund produced a technical report for Black Voters Matter Fund on a proposed purge of 153,779 voters in Wisconsin, a plan pushed by Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a group financed by right-wing billionaires. For Black Voters Matter, we brought back our team of location experts who proved, name by name, that the proposed purge was wildly riddled with errors.
Notably, we found that the purged was aimed almost exclusively at African-Americans in Milwaukee and at students in Madison. The non-partisan Elections Board agreed with us, allowing those voters to cast ballots, with the result that Biden squeaked by Trump in Wisconsin by 20,682 votes. (Note: It was not our intention to elect Biden, but to allow the voters, not some Purge’n General, to pick our President.)
Unfortunately, before the 2024 election, the Poison Postcard Purge accelerated. This time, a new Elections Board in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) decided to use the same discredited purge list to knock off 166,433 voters which, this time, we could not stop. Kamala Harris lost that state by just 29,397 votes. In Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), the Poison Postcards wiped out 360,132 voters, three times Trump’s victory margin.
And before the vote this year, Georgia ramped up the purge, targeting an astonishing 875,000 voters, earning it the #1 ranking for “election integrity” by the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation.
I saw the purge in action in Savannah, Georgia, this October, where 900 Savannah voters, most of them Black, were challenged by one single “vigilante,” according to voting expert Carry Smith. Smith, who wrote her doctoral thesis on wrongful purges in Georgia, was herself on the hit list.
And more
We haven’t even touched on other ways that voters of color, college students and urban voters have come under attack. These include the rejection of new registrations and rejection of in-person votes as “spoiled” (i.e. rejected as unreadable), costing, according to the EAC, more than a million votes—rejections which our 25 years of investigations have found are way overweighted against the Democratic demographic.
After the 2012 election, I was able to calculate, with cold certainty, that 2,383,587 new voters had their registrations rejected; 488,136 legitimate absentee ballots were disqualified, and so on. In that election, a total of 5,901,814 citizens were blocked from voting or had their ballots disqualified. These stats were based on the hard data from the EAC which gathers detailed reports from the states.
Today, with new, sophisticated, and well-financed vote suppression operations, the number of voters purged and ballots disqualified are clearly far higher than the suppression count of 2012. Unfortunately, the EAC won’t release data, if it does at all, for at least a year. We’ve put in Open Records requests to the states, but today’s officials are stonewalling and slow-walking our requests for the data.
In no other democracy are the vote totals—or, to be clear, the uncounted ballot totals—a state secret.
America deserves an answer to this question: Excluding a boost from Jim Crow vote suppression games, did Donald Trump win?
From the shockingly huge numbers we’ve discussed here of provisional and mail-in ballots disqualified, the postcard purge operation, the vigilante challenges and so on, we can say, with reasonable certainty, Trump lost—that is, would have lost both the Electoral College and popular vote totals absent suppression.
By how much?
For those who can’t sleep without my best estimate, let me apply the most conservative methodology possible, as I would do in a government investigation.
I’ve updated the 2012 suppression numbers with the newest available data. Not surprisingly, the suppression number has soared, in part because the number of voters has increased by 41.3 million since 2012. But principally, the votes “lost” also zoomed upward because of the massive increase in mail-in balloting by Democrats since 2012, and crucially, the effect of new Jim Crow voting restrictions. Given a minimum two-to-one racial and partisan disparity in voters purged and ballots disqualified, the 2024 “suppression factor” is no less than 4.596% of the total vote.
Those familiar with data mining will note that there is some double-counting in the 9 million voters and their ballots disqualified that I cited at the top of the article. In addition, we must recognize that many voters caught up in the purges and challenges would have cast their ballot for Trump. Therefore, I’ve conservatively cut in half the low end of the range of the calculation of votes suppressed to 2.3% to isolate the effect on Trump’s official victory margin.
In other words, vote suppression cost Kamala Harris no fewer than 3,565,000 votes. Harris would have topped Trump’s official total by 1.2 million. Most important, this 2.3% suppression factor undoubtedly cost Harris the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. If not for the wholesale attack on votes and voters, Harris would have won the election with 286 Electoral votes.
Tech note from a numbers guy—and Martin Luther King
Until the Elections Assistance Commission gets updated figures from the states next year (and, under Trump, I doubt we will ever get those numbers), 3,565,000 votes lost to Harris is the estimate I would present in my role as a forensic expert in a courtroom as the lowest conceivable suppression factor.
I rarely make a big deal about my own credentials but, since the election, the Web has been flooded by amateur, arithmetic-defying speculation about computer hacking and other unsupported twaddle. Best to stick to hard, verifiable data. And that’s what I do.
For two decades, I was a forensic economist for government agencies including the US Justice Department; taught statistics at Indiana University; provided expert calculations of vote suppression for the ACLU, NAACP, and RainbowPUSH, and won the Global Editors Award for my data journalism on vote suppression measurements for reports done for Al Jazeera, BBC, Rolling Stone and The Guardian. The numbers you get here are exactly what I’d present to a Federal court. In other words, kids, don’t do this at home…calculating the “un-count” requires expertise.
I make this point for another reason: The theory that “Elon Musk messed with the voting machines” is, unconsciously, unintentionally racist. With few exceptions, these silly speculations come from those who simply ignore not just the millions of votes officially reported as suppressed, their theories also ignore the horrifically painful experience of Black people turned away from the polls.
Here is a photo of Jessica Lawrence in tears, moments after her 92-year-old grandmother was tossed out of an Atlanta polling station, into a storm, because she’d been wrongfully purged. Any speculation about the nefarious cause of Trump’s win must not leave out Jessica’s grandma nor the millions of other citizens of color who were wrongly barred from their ballot.
Jessica Lawrence at Atlanta polling station just after her 92-year-old grandmother was denied a ballot. Photo: David Ambrose for the Palast Investigative Fund ©2018. [See Ms. Jordan and Maj. Turner in the film, Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen, available without charge on YouTube.]
Now here’s the good news.
We saw that in 2020 when, despite extreme, even felonious actions by Trump supporters to block, challenge and disqualify voters and ballots, the theft by suppression was defeated.
That was the work of voting rights groups challenging these attacks. The work was done in the courts and, more important, in the precincts, re-registering the purged, challenging the challenges, “curing” disqualified ballots.
The road is long but victory is certain. After the 2016 election, the Palast team uncovered a cruel, racist purge program called, “Interstate Crosscheck” that cost nearly a million voters, overwhelmingly minorities, their rights. This motivated the Rev. Jesse Jackson to launch a campaign that successfully shut down Crosscheck. Unquestionably, Joe Biden could not have won in 2020 without the Reverend saving literally hundreds of thousands of votes. The point is, they can’t suppress all the votes all the time.
In other words, Democracy can win, despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK.
Martin Luther King gave us our marching orders in 1965, in words just as important today.
Forensic economist and data journalist Palast covered vote suppression for The Guardian, BBC Television and Rolling Stone. He is the author of New York Times bestsellers on the topic including The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
by Greg Palast
The Hartmann Report
Jan 24, 2025
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost ... on-won-c6f
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
Stay with me and I’ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.
But if you’re expecting a sexy story about Elon Musk messing with vote-counting software from outer space, sorry, you won’t get that here.
As in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and in too many other miscarriages of Democracy, this election was determined by good old “vote suppression,” the polite term we use for shafting people of color out of their ballot. We used to call it Jim Crow.
Here are key numbers:
— 4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
— By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed “vigilante” voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters. The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
— No fewer than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
— At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified.
— 1,216,000 “provisional” ballots were rejected, not counted.
— 3.24 million new registrations were rejected or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.
If the purges, challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.
There are also the uncountable effects of the explosive growth of voter intimidation tactics including the bomb threats that closed 31 polling stations in Atlanta on Election Day.
America’s Nasty Little Secret
The nasty little secret of American democracy is that we don’t count all the votes. Nor let every citizen vote.
In 2024, especially, after an avalanche of new not-going-to-let-you-vote laws passed in almost every red state, the number of citizens Jim Crow’d out of their vote soared into the millions. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, since the 2020 election, “At least 30 states enacted 78 restrictive laws” to blockade voting. The race-targeted laws ran the gamut from shuttering drop boxes in Black-majority cities to, for the first time, allowing non-government self-appointed “vote fraud vigilantes” to challenge voters by the hundreds of thousands.
Throughout election seasons, The New York Times and NPR and establishment media write stories and editorials decrying vote suppression tactics, from new ID requirements to new restrictions on mail-in voting. But, notably, the mainstream press never, ever, not once, will say that these ugly racist attacks on voters changed the outcome of an election.
Question: If these vote suppression laws—notorious example: Georgia’s SB 202—had no effect on election outcomes, then why did GOP legislators fight so hard to pass these laws? The answer is clear on the Brennan Center’s map of states that passed restrictive laws. It’s pretty much Trump’s victory map.
States that have enacted restrictive voting laws, 2021-24
America Goes Postal
Let’s look at just one vote suppression operation in action.
In 2020, during the pandemic, America went postal. More than 43% of us voted by mail.
But it wasn’t easy. Harris County, Texas, home of Houston, tried to mail out ballots during the Covid epidemic on the grounds that voters shouldn’t die waiting in lines at polling stations. But then, the state’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton stopped this life-saving measure.
Why wouldn’t this GOP official let Houstonians vote safely? Maybe it’s because Houston has the largest number of Black voters of any city in America. Indeed, on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Paxton proudly stated, “Had we not done that [stopped Houston from sending out ballots], Donald Trump would've lost the election” in Texas. Texas!
Before the 2024 election, prompted by Trump’s evidence-free attack on mail-in ballots as inherently fraudulent, 22 states, according to the Brennan Center, imposed “38 new restrictions on the ability to vote absentee that were not in place in 2020…likely to most affect or already have disproportionately affected voters of color.” You’re shocked, right?
Texas’ requirement to add ID numbers to an absentee ballot caused the rejection rate to jump from 1% to 12%.
So, here’s the question we need to ask. If restrictions on mail-in balloting swung Texas to Trump, how did all these new restrictions affect the outcome of the vote in other states?
In 2020, an NPR study found the mail-in ballot rejection rate hit 13.8% during the Democratic primaries—a loss of one in seven ballots.
Take Georgia, where the Palast Investigative Fund spent months in on-the-ground investigations.
Here are photos of a Georgia voter, career military officer and Pentagon advisor Major Gamaliel Turner (Ret), demonstrating for young voters how to fill out an absentee ballot, emphasizing that it must be mailed in promptly. He did, seven days before the deadline. But we only recently learned that Georgia officials disqualified his ballot as received too late.
Major Gamaliel Turner (now retired) about to mail in his absentee ballot. The state of Georgia rejected it. (Photo: Palast Investigative Fund 2024.)
In 2008, even before the majority of Democrats began voting by mail, when absentee balloting was much rarer, the federal government reported 488,136 mail-in ballots were rejected, almost all on picayune grounds (i.e. middle initial on signature missing etc.). An MIT study put the number of rejected mail-in ballots at 2.9%.
That’s the low-end of MIT’s estimate of mail-in ballots tossed out. Charles Stewart, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, author of the report, notes mail-in ballots requested and never received nor returned could raise the total mail-in ballot loss rate to 21%.
For 2024, that would total 14.1 million ballots that, effectively, vanished from the count.
The “failure to return” ballot was exacerbated in this election by the steep cut in ballot drop boxes, a method favored by urban (read, “Democratic”) voters. Black voters in Atlanta used ballot drop boxes extensively because they feared, with good reason, relying on the Post Office [see Major Turner’s story above].
In response, the Republican Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, signed SB 202 which slashed the number of drop boxes by 75% only in Black-majority counties and locked them away at night. These moves slashed mail-in and drop box balloting, used by the majority of Democrats in 2020, by nearly 90% in the 2024 race.
Even if deemed “on time,” ballots still face rejection. Marietta, Georgia, first-time voter Andrian Consonery Jr. told me his mail-in ballot was rejected because his signature supposedly didn’t match that on his registration. (I needn’t add, Consonery is Black.) In effect, Consonery was accused of forgery—a federal crime--not by the FBI but by self-appointed amateur sleuths. This challenge to mail-in ballots, part of a right-wing campaign, has gone viral.
Georgian Adrian Consonery Jr.’s mail-in ballot was challenged because of a false claim that his signature was forged. Photo: Zach D. Roberts for the Palast Investigative Fund (2024)
In 2020, the federal government reported that 157,477 ballots were rejected for supposedly “mis-matched” signatures. That’s quite a crime wave—but without criminals.
And that’s before we get to the dozens of other attacks on voting that were freshly minted for the 2024 election, attacks aimed at voters of color.
The crucial statistic is that not everyone’s ballot gets disqualified. One study done for the United States Civil Rights Commission found that a Black person, such as Maj. Turner, will be 900% more likely to have their mail-in or in-person ballot disqualified than a white voter.
Now, let’s do some arithmetic. If we take the lowest end of the MIT ballot rejection rate, and only a tenth of the “lost” ballot rate, and then apply it to the number of mail-in and drop-box ballots, we can conservatively estimate that 2,121,000 mail-in votes went into the electoral dumpster.
Whose ballots? Democrats are 51% more likely than Republicans to vote by mail; and, given the racial disparity in ballot rejections, Trump’s swing-state margins begin to look shaky.
The KKK Plan and the New Vigilantes
In 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund uncovered a whole new way to bring Jim Crow back to life: challenges to a citizen’s right to vote by a posse of self-proclaimed vote-fraud hunters.
Four years ago, the GOP took this new suppression method out for a test ride in Georgia when 88 Republican operatives—remember, these are not government officials — challenged the rights of over180,000 Georgians to have their ballots counted. These vigilantes based their scheme on the program originally used by the Ku Klux Klan in 1946.
One challenged voter: Major Turner, the same voter whose mail-in ballot was disqualified in a later election.
In 2020, the Major’s ballot was challenged by the county Chairman of the Republican Party in Southern Georgia, Alton Russell. (Russell likes to dress up as infamous vigilante Doc Holliday, with a loaded six-gun in a holster.) In a (polite) confrontation we filmed between the Major and Russell, the GOP honcho admitted he had no evidence that Maj. Turner, nor any of the 4,000 others he challenged, should be denied the right to have their ballots counted.
Note: The Palast Fund contacted a sample of 800 of these challenged voters and found that, overwhelmingly, they were Americans of color.
In 2020, this KKK plan, adopted by the Trump organization, proved its value. In that election, Trump almost won Georgia, falling short by just 11,779 votes—only because local elections officials rejected most of the challenges. But for 2024, the Georgia’s Republican-controlled legislature changed the law to make it very difficult for officials to deny the challenges.
That emboldened the Trump-supported organization True the Vote to roll out the challenge to every swing state. In 2024, True the Vote signed up over 40,000 volunteer vigilantes. The organization crowed proudly that, by August of 2024, they’d already challenged a mind-blowing 317,886 voters in dozens of states. By Election Day this November, True the Vote projected it would have challenged over two million voters. In addition, Trump’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, founded Eagle AI to challenge hundreds of thousands more including in swing state Pennsylvania.
How many voters ultimately lost their ballots? Almost all voting officials we’ve contacted have refused to answer.
Placebo Ballots
Those voters who’d been challenged but mailed in their ballot would be unlikely to know their vote had been lost. Others who showed up in person at a poll would be told they could not vote on a regular ballot. These voters were sent away or forced to vote on a “provisional” ballot.
If you’ve been challenged or find you’ve been purged off the registration rolls, you’ll be offered one of these provisional ballots, paper ballots you place in a special envelope. Typically, you’ll be promised your registration will be checked and then your ballot will be counted. Bullshit. If you’re challenged, unless you personally contact or go into your county clerk’s office with ID and proof of address, your ballot goes into the electoral dumpster.
A better name for a “provisional” ballot would be “placebo” ballot. You think you’ve voted, but chances are, you did not, that is, your ballot wasn’t counted.
Here's an ugly number: According to the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), in 2016, when 2.5 million provisional ballots were cast, a breathtaking 42.3% were never counted.
Think about that. Over a million Americans lost their vote — though, notably, not one was charged with attempting to vote illegally. And that was in 2016, before the vigilante challenges and before millions more had been purged from the rolls leading up to the 2024 election.
And here’s the statistic that matters most. Black, Hispanic or Asian-America voters are 300% more likely than white voters to be shunted to a “placebo” provisional ballot.
The Great Purge and the Poison Postcard
The polite term in government agencies is, “List Maintenance.” It’s best known as The Purge—when voters’ registrations are wiped off the rolls. The EAC keeps track of The Purge. It’s a big business. For example, before the 2022 election, when the data was last available, swing state North Carolina wiped 392,851 voters off the rolls.
The majority of removals were based on questionable, indeed, shockingly faulty information that a voter had moved their residence. I’m not talking about the 4.9 million voters purged because they’re dead, or eight million others whose residential move could be verified, nor those serving time in prison nor those ruled too crazy to vote.
I’m talking about a trick that has been perfected by politicians of both parties to eliminate voters of the wrong persuasion: the Poison Postcard. Here’s how it works: Targeted voters are mailed postcards by state elections officials. (Let’s remember, state voting chiefs, “Secretaries of State,” are almost to a one partisan hacks.) Voters who don’t sign and return the cards, which look like junk mail, will be purged.
The Poison Postcard response rate is close to nothing. In Arizona, according to the EAC, just one in ten postcards are returned. And in Georgia, the vote-saving response is barely above 1%. And that’s the way our partisan voting officials like it.
Were the millions of Americans purged before the 2024 election all fraudsters who should lose their right to vote? Direct marketing expert Mark Swedlund told us, “This only means that most people, especially young people, the poor and voters of color, simply ignore junk mail.”
With the help of Swedlund and the same experts used by Amazon—and believe me, Amazon knows exactly where you live--we took a deep dive into two states’ purge operations for the ACLU.
The state of Georgia had purged hundreds of thousands from the voter rolls on grounds they’d moved from their voting addresses. Our experts, going name by name through Georgia’s purge list, working from special data provided us by the US Postal Service, identified 198,351 Georgians who had been purged for moving had, in fact, not moved an inch from their legal voting address. The state’s only evidence these 198,351 voters had moved? They failed to return the Poison Postcard.
Georgia Voter Roll Purge Errors, by Greg Palast, Sept 1, 2020
In 2020, I testified in federal court for the NAACP and RainbowPUSH, presenting our expert findings to get those voters, overweighted with minorities and young Georgians, back on the rolls. Unfortunately, the Trump’d-up court system now gives huge deference to a state’s voting operations, a trend which first took off in 2013 when the US Supreme Court defenestrated the Voting Rights Act.
The results have been devastating. According to the EAC data, before the 2024 election, 4,776,706 registrants were removed nationwide simply because they failed to return the postcard.
Also in 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund produced a technical report for Black Voters Matter Fund on a proposed purge of 153,779 voters in Wisconsin, a plan pushed by Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a group financed by right-wing billionaires. For Black Voters Matter, we brought back our team of location experts who proved, name by name, that the proposed purge was wildly riddled with errors.
Notably, we found that the purged was aimed almost exclusively at African-Americans in Milwaukee and at students in Madison. The non-partisan Elections Board agreed with us, allowing those voters to cast ballots, with the result that Biden squeaked by Trump in Wisconsin by 20,682 votes. (Note: It was not our intention to elect Biden, but to allow the voters, not some Purge’n General, to pick our President.)
Unfortunately, before the 2024 election, the Poison Postcard Purge accelerated. This time, a new Elections Board in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) decided to use the same discredited purge list to knock off 166,433 voters which, this time, we could not stop. Kamala Harris lost that state by just 29,397 votes. In Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), the Poison Postcards wiped out 360,132 voters, three times Trump’s victory margin.
And before the vote this year, Georgia ramped up the purge, targeting an astonishing 875,000 voters, earning it the #1 ranking for “election integrity” by the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation.
I saw the purge in action in Savannah, Georgia, this October, where 900 Savannah voters, most of them Black, were challenged by one single “vigilante,” according to voting expert Carry Smith. Smith, who wrote her doctoral thesis on wrongful purges in Georgia, was herself on the hit list.
And more
We haven’t even touched on other ways that voters of color, college students and urban voters have come under attack. These include the rejection of new registrations and rejection of in-person votes as “spoiled” (i.e. rejected as unreadable), costing, according to the EAC, more than a million votes—rejections which our 25 years of investigations have found are way overweighted against the Democratic demographic.
After the 2012 election, I was able to calculate, with cold certainty, that 2,383,587 new voters had their registrations rejected; 488,136 legitimate absentee ballots were disqualified, and so on. In that election, a total of 5,901,814 citizens were blocked from voting or had their ballots disqualified. These stats were based on the hard data from the EAC which gathers detailed reports from the states.
Today, with new, sophisticated, and well-financed vote suppression operations, the number of voters purged and ballots disqualified are clearly far higher than the suppression count of 2012. Unfortunately, the EAC won’t release data, if it does at all, for at least a year. We’ve put in Open Records requests to the states, but today’s officials are stonewalling and slow-walking our requests for the data.
In no other democracy are the vote totals—or, to be clear, the uncounted ballot totals—a state secret.
America deserves an answer to this question: Excluding a boost from Jim Crow vote suppression games, did Donald Trump win?
From the shockingly huge numbers we’ve discussed here of provisional and mail-in ballots disqualified, the postcard purge operation, the vigilante challenges and so on, we can say, with reasonable certainty, Trump lost—that is, would have lost both the Electoral College and popular vote totals absent suppression.
By how much?
For those who can’t sleep without my best estimate, let me apply the most conservative methodology possible, as I would do in a government investigation.
I’ve updated the 2012 suppression numbers with the newest available data. Not surprisingly, the suppression number has soared, in part because the number of voters has increased by 41.3 million since 2012. But principally, the votes “lost” also zoomed upward because of the massive increase in mail-in balloting by Democrats since 2012, and crucially, the effect of new Jim Crow voting restrictions. Given a minimum two-to-one racial and partisan disparity in voters purged and ballots disqualified, the 2024 “suppression factor” is no less than 4.596% of the total vote.
Those familiar with data mining will note that there is some double-counting in the 9 million voters and their ballots disqualified that I cited at the top of the article. In addition, we must recognize that many voters caught up in the purges and challenges would have cast their ballot for Trump. Therefore, I’ve conservatively cut in half the low end of the range of the calculation of votes suppressed to 2.3% to isolate the effect on Trump’s official victory margin.
In other words, vote suppression cost Kamala Harris no fewer than 3,565,000 votes. Harris would have topped Trump’s official total by 1.2 million. Most important, this 2.3% suppression factor undoubtedly cost Harris the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. If not for the wholesale attack on votes and voters, Harris would have won the election with 286 Electoral votes.
Tech note from a numbers guy—and Martin Luther King
Until the Elections Assistance Commission gets updated figures from the states next year (and, under Trump, I doubt we will ever get those numbers), 3,565,000 votes lost to Harris is the estimate I would present in my role as a forensic expert in a courtroom as the lowest conceivable suppression factor.
I rarely make a big deal about my own credentials but, since the election, the Web has been flooded by amateur, arithmetic-defying speculation about computer hacking and other unsupported twaddle. Best to stick to hard, verifiable data. And that’s what I do.
For two decades, I was a forensic economist for government agencies including the US Justice Department; taught statistics at Indiana University; provided expert calculations of vote suppression for the ACLU, NAACP, and RainbowPUSH, and won the Global Editors Award for my data journalism on vote suppression measurements for reports done for Al Jazeera, BBC, Rolling Stone and The Guardian. The numbers you get here are exactly what I’d present to a Federal court. In other words, kids, don’t do this at home…calculating the “un-count” requires expertise.
I make this point for another reason: The theory that “Elon Musk messed with the voting machines” is, unconsciously, unintentionally racist. With few exceptions, these silly speculations come from those who simply ignore not just the millions of votes officially reported as suppressed, their theories also ignore the horrifically painful experience of Black people turned away from the polls.
Here is a photo of Jessica Lawrence in tears, moments after her 92-year-old grandmother was tossed out of an Atlanta polling station, into a storm, because she’d been wrongfully purged. Any speculation about the nefarious cause of Trump’s win must not leave out Jessica’s grandma nor the millions of other citizens of color who were wrongly barred from their ballot.
Jessica Lawrence at Atlanta polling station just after her 92-year-old grandmother was denied a ballot. Photo: David Ambrose for the Palast Investigative Fund ©2018. [See Ms. Jordan and Maj. Turner in the film, Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen, available without charge on YouTube.]
Now here’s the good news.
We saw that in 2020 when, despite extreme, even felonious actions by Trump supporters to block, challenge and disqualify voters and ballots, the theft by suppression was defeated.
That was the work of voting rights groups challenging these attacks. The work was done in the courts and, more important, in the precincts, re-registering the purged, challenging the challenges, “curing” disqualified ballots.
The road is long but victory is certain. After the 2016 election, the Palast team uncovered a cruel, racist purge program called, “Interstate Crosscheck” that cost nearly a million voters, overwhelmingly minorities, their rights. This motivated the Rev. Jesse Jackson to launch a campaign that successfully shut down Crosscheck. Unquestionably, Joe Biden could not have won in 2020 without the Reverend saving literally hundreds of thousands of votes. The point is, they can’t suppress all the votes all the time.
In other words, Democracy can win, despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK.
Martin Luther King gave us our marching orders in 1965, in words just as important today.
“Let us march on ballot boxes, march on ballot boxes until race-baiters disappear from the political arena. I want to say to the people of America and the nations of the world, that we are not about to turn around. We are on the move now.”
Forensic economist and data journalist Palast covered vote suppression for The Guardian, BBC Television and Rolling Stone. He is the author of New York Times bestsellers on the topic including The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 4:53 pm
BREAKING: Elon Musk hit with lawsuit we’ve WAITED for
by Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 4, 2025 Interviews with Brian Tyler Cohen
INTERVIEW - Brian interviews Norm Eisen about his lawsuit against Elon Musk and Doge.
Transcript
I'm joined by former Obama ethics are
and the founder of the contrarian Norm
Eisen Norm thank you for joining and I'm
actually really glad that you were able
to come on today because this is a
really timely uh moment here obviously
the issue of Elon Musk kind of figuring
out his way for Doge to insert
themselves into the treasury into
finding access into our treasury Payment
Systems has has made front headlines
here and it's caused a lot of concern
for people you've taken action against
this issue can you explain what you've
done I have Brian um by filing a
lawsuit my group State democracy
Defenders fund together with public
Citizen and with labor unions and
retiree uh
organization
has filed an action saying that this
invasion of our treasury systems which
is which are packed with personal
information about you and me and
everyone we know uh that do has no
business there's no good reason for them
to be in there to have access to our
information you know the the the the the
public outcry across our nation is
matched by serious legal limits
protecting our privacy the
administrative procedures act other
legal limits on doing this we think
those limits have been transgressed and
we've gone to Court to protect all of us
uh from this intrusion on the treasury
systems nor obviously the the public
outcry is a testament to how serious
this is and obviously time is of the
essence here because the longer that
that these folks who are unelected
largely working under the cloak of
Darkness I mean there's a lot of opacity
surrounding Doge um the more time that
they have to do this the more access to
information they'll have and so how
quick do you presume that we'll see some
action
um from the from the judicial front I
think you're going to see very brisk
action from the courts on this those
judges don't want Doge pawing over their
personal information anymore than you or
I do Brian and you Brian and I were
together at a democracy conference this
weekend I briefly visited him and then I
vanished he said where'd you go I said I
got to write by lawsuit so we treated it
as a matter of the utmost urgency you
know here at State democracy Defenders
we literally have been working around
the clock filing lawsuits constantly
explaining what they're about our
philosophy is court of law Court of
public opinion and this is one of the
most important against the do it's not
our only lawsuit that we filed in fact
the we were so worried about what might
happen here and the cloak of secrecy
under which this doge is operating and
the questions about its legal reality
the very first lawsuit of any kind filed
against Donald Trump I had somebody
stationed to file it as soon as he took
his oath of office was to um to to to
move against the Doge and to get the
courts to make sure it's following the
law and now you see why we sued because
of this uh treasury Scandal so um so
we've been hammering on other issues uh
constitutional violations legal
administrative violations the president
is running a muck he promised to be a
dictator on day one Brian we've talked
about this those who assume dictatorial
Powers very seldom voluntarily
relinquish them after one day and every
day he's attempted to batter our
constitution our laws our rule of law
system but the good news is my co-
counil public citizen our group State
democracy Defenders fund and so many
others have been in court suing
litigating um ACLU is my partner in the
uh Birthright citizens ship case Donald
Trump tried to tear up the Constitution
the citizenship provisions of the
Constitution at the contrarian we write
about this a lot we're meeting shock and
awe that Donald Trump is doing on behalf
of autocracy with democracy
pro-democracy shock and awe uh groups
and individuals across the country but
we need need much more Norm how
confident are you that even if you're
successful in this litigation I know
you've been successful in these other tr
these temporary restraining orders how
how confident are you that for something
like this where Trump has just kind of
imbued Elon Musk with all this power and
really he's seeing very little push back
on the legislative front that the
executive branch is even going to
respect any rulings handed down by a
judge well first of all the credit uh is
broadly distributed government officials
have been litigating and securing TR C3
groups uh we've been very active uh
litigant out there and I am confident
that the courts uh based on preliminary
indications are up to this challenge H
Trump's own part is in control of
article one the Congress Trump himself
is in control of article to the
presidency although remember why is he
attacking all these public servants I'm
also working uh on behalf of uh our our
terrific FBI and doj public servants uh
who he's mercilessly attacked there's
two million people in uh the executive
branch but Donald Trump has control from
the White House article three the
Judiciary is pushing back and that's
what we're going to look to as the front
line of uh defense here and so far
that's promising and I think it's a
wakeup call for the American people
they're not all the way awake yet
they're numb and they're shocked about
what Donald Trump is doing I mean it is
hard to believe Norm are you able to to
go into any more detail about some of
the retaliatory action that the
unlawfully fired FBI agents or any other
executive branch officials prosecutors
are doing in order to to push back
against against these uh these moves by
the Administration you know it's so
ironic uh that Donald Trump was
complaining about the uh defund the
police movement because he wants to
disable the police right you you have
and he's supporting criminals you have
1600 insurrectionists who he pardoned on
day one um uh over 140 of whom violently
assaulted law enforcement they've been
let loose on the street and now we have
a story he's trying to get the names of
every FBI and doj person who worked on
those cases uh there's only one there's
no good reason to do that except to put
those names out there put those people
at risk he's supporting criminals and
he's he's attacking our law enforcement
uh uh both at the FBI and doj I think
it's absolutely outrages and again I
don't believe the American people will
stand for this I think that they are
going to make their displeasure known
and I'm not going to get into too many
details about it but I don't think the
courts are going to stand for it either
Brian and as you know I sent a letter to
the Department of Justice with a
distinguished former federal judge Nancy
gerner who's on our democracy Defenders
board Mark Zade one of our nation's uh
best uh and most experienced litigators
uh particularly uh representing uh doj
and FBI officials and we wrote the
Department of Justice yesterday and we
said there will be serious consequences
at law uh if uh you uh persist on this
court at least for today the names have
not been released uh and that would be a
tremendous tremendous wrong histo of
historical proportions and
uh folks are not going to accept that so
would it be fair to say that it is
unlikely that these prosecutors are
going to roll over in the face of these
attacks by the Trump Administration I've
been so pleased uh both doj and FBI at
the Integrity for example uh press
reports that uh FBI senior officials
starting with the acting director um
have insisted on following the law have
objected that some of the AC special
agents in charge around the country have
been strongly defending their people uh
there's no good reason to collect and
disseminate this information and um I
think Donald Trump made a big mistake
with his overreach in all of these
different areas because instead of
slowly boiling the Frog uh he's thrown
it in the microwave and it's heinous
it's it's heinous the reality is as
heinous as the metaphorical
misconduct Norm why is it up to you and
and your team to do so much of what
Congress should be doing I mean in a
normal world this is the kind of thing
especially Appropriations is the kind of
thing that the legislative branch would
would jealously guard and yet they're
completely content to just allow the
executive branch allow Donald Trump to
usurp all of their power all of their
autonomy and so now the onus is falling
on you and and groups you work with and
other groups that are aligned with the
mission when it should be the
legislative branch who should be who
should be there protecting their own
power Brian we know that in a democracy
ultimately it comes down to you and to
me and we can't democracy is only as
strong as its people and
unfortunately the majorities the GOP
majorities in the house and in the
Senate have shown uh bend the knee kiss
the ring and bow down sometimes Trump
doesn't even need to ask him
anticipatory obedience they fall down
before they've been hit yeah and um it's
a shocking abdication of their duty to
the American people to the American idea
to the nation that uh that uh they
relied on their rise to these important
positions but that's why the founders
and the framers had a system of checks
and balances and if article one the
legislature won't hold back article two
the presidency then we have article
three and the courts have been
active and ultimately you have the what
I refer to as the fourth and fifth
branches because you have our great
state officials many of them
particularly in blue States in purple
States Governors AGS Mayors they are
pushing back they're litigating and then
you have uh also the uh the classic
fourth Branch the media Norm do you have
the support that you need and is there
anything that that my audience can do I
mean look I I I know that there is that
there is an absolute hunger at least
among my audience and for myself too to
see people actually stand up and take
action against so much of this unlawful
Behavior by Donald Trump you're out
there doing the thing and and I think
that's that's commendable and I think a
lot of people are looking for that exact
type of action that exact type of
response so is there any way that my
audience can support the work that that
you and your teams are doing well Brian
thank you for having me back so often to
talk about uh the mission and really uh
at State democracy Defenders fund we're
part of a very large ecosystem of those
who are moving if they're inclined to
support our work in the court of law
visit our website State democracy
Defenders fund um it'll take you right
there there you can support us uh
financially any amount very welcome um
but it's not enough in the court of law
you also have to fight in the court of
public opinion that's why I left CNN
that was the subhead the real headline
was Jen Rubin left the Washington Post
we started our own media platform
inspired by Brian the contrarian that's
grown to almost uh
450,000 subscribers now we get well over
a million views the day um join us in
the battle in the court of public
opinion by subscribing to the contrarian
or by visiting State democracy Defenders
fund but the most important thing that
each and every one of you is doing truly
is listening to the conversation
thinking about how you can engage uh
getting ready uh As Americans uh to uh
peacefully and loyally defend our
constitution uh it really is the
ultimate um Safeguard of American
democracy is the American people so help
us out stay tuned in and we're going to
get through this thing together we're at
a Crossroads will we go the way of
Poland and Brazil which ousted
autocratic regimes like Trump's restored
democracy will we go the way of Hungary
or turkey they failed I believe in the
strength of the American people uh and I
think the American people from the
Grassroots to the
Treetops uh are starting toh wake up and
uh and get into the work of our
lifetimes toh stop this Democratic
backsliding and put us back on the path
that we can all be proud of As Americans
all right well Norm I I got to say again
on behalf of myself and all of my
viewers thank you so much for for the
work that you and your team are doing
for being out there and fighting I'll
put the link to State democracy
Defenders fund right here on the screen
and also in the post description of this
video I'll also put in the post
description of this video a link to the
contrarian which is the news Outlet you
Jen Rubin and your other colleagues have
founded um that are that are out there
holding truth to power so so uh I I
again appreciate all the work you're
doing and thank you for taking the time
thanks Brian and thanks to everybody
watching and listening and supporting
this sh shared effort to advance
American democracy and the backsliding
let's get back to what we can all be
proud of
by Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 4, 2025 Interviews with Brian Tyler Cohen
INTERVIEW - Brian interviews Norm Eisen about his lawsuit against Elon Musk and Doge.
Transcript
I'm joined by former Obama ethics are
and the founder of the contrarian Norm
Eisen Norm thank you for joining and I'm
actually really glad that you were able
to come on today because this is a
really timely uh moment here obviously
the issue of Elon Musk kind of figuring
out his way for Doge to insert
themselves into the treasury into
finding access into our treasury Payment
Systems has has made front headlines
here and it's caused a lot of concern
for people you've taken action against
this issue can you explain what you've
done I have Brian um by filing a
lawsuit my group State democracy
Defenders fund together with public
Citizen and with labor unions and
retiree uh
organization
has filed an action saying that this
invasion of our treasury systems which
is which are packed with personal
information about you and me and
everyone we know uh that do has no
business there's no good reason for them
to be in there to have access to our
information you know the the the the the
public outcry across our nation is
matched by serious legal limits
protecting our privacy the
administrative procedures act other
legal limits on doing this we think
those limits have been transgressed and
we've gone to Court to protect all of us
uh from this intrusion on the treasury
systems nor obviously the the public
outcry is a testament to how serious
this is and obviously time is of the
essence here because the longer that
that these folks who are unelected
largely working under the cloak of
Darkness I mean there's a lot of opacity
surrounding Doge um the more time that
they have to do this the more access to
information they'll have and so how
quick do you presume that we'll see some
action
um from the from the judicial front I
think you're going to see very brisk
action from the courts on this those
judges don't want Doge pawing over their
personal information anymore than you or
I do Brian and you Brian and I were
together at a democracy conference this
weekend I briefly visited him and then I
vanished he said where'd you go I said I
got to write by lawsuit so we treated it
as a matter of the utmost urgency you
know here at State democracy Defenders
we literally have been working around
the clock filing lawsuits constantly
explaining what they're about our
philosophy is court of law Court of
public opinion and this is one of the
most important against the do it's not
our only lawsuit that we filed in fact
the we were so worried about what might
happen here and the cloak of secrecy
under which this doge is operating and
the questions about its legal reality
the very first lawsuit of any kind filed
against Donald Trump I had somebody
stationed to file it as soon as he took
his oath of office was to um to to to
move against the Doge and to get the
courts to make sure it's following the
law and now you see why we sued because
of this uh treasury Scandal so um so
we've been hammering on other issues uh
constitutional violations legal
administrative violations the president
is running a muck he promised to be a
dictator on day one Brian we've talked
about this those who assume dictatorial
Powers very seldom voluntarily
relinquish them after one day and every
day he's attempted to batter our
constitution our laws our rule of law
system but the good news is my co-
counil public citizen our group State
democracy Defenders fund and so many
others have been in court suing
litigating um ACLU is my partner in the
uh Birthright citizens ship case Donald
Trump tried to tear up the Constitution
the citizenship provisions of the
Constitution at the contrarian we write
about this a lot we're meeting shock and
awe that Donald Trump is doing on behalf
of autocracy with democracy
pro-democracy shock and awe uh groups
and individuals across the country but
we need need much more Norm how
confident are you that even if you're
successful in this litigation I know
you've been successful in these other tr
these temporary restraining orders how
how confident are you that for something
like this where Trump has just kind of
imbued Elon Musk with all this power and
really he's seeing very little push back
on the legislative front that the
executive branch is even going to
respect any rulings handed down by a
judge well first of all the credit uh is
broadly distributed government officials
have been litigating and securing TR C3
groups uh we've been very active uh
litigant out there and I am confident
that the courts uh based on preliminary
indications are up to this challenge H
Trump's own part is in control of
article one the Congress Trump himself
is in control of article to the
presidency although remember why is he
attacking all these public servants I'm
also working uh on behalf of uh our our
terrific FBI and doj public servants uh
who he's mercilessly attacked there's
two million people in uh the executive
branch but Donald Trump has control from
the White House article three the
Judiciary is pushing back and that's
what we're going to look to as the front
line of uh defense here and so far
that's promising and I think it's a
wakeup call for the American people
they're not all the way awake yet
they're numb and they're shocked about
what Donald Trump is doing I mean it is
hard to believe Norm are you able to to
go into any more detail about some of
the retaliatory action that the
unlawfully fired FBI agents or any other
executive branch officials prosecutors
are doing in order to to push back
against against these uh these moves by
the Administration you know it's so
ironic uh that Donald Trump was
complaining about the uh defund the
police movement because he wants to
disable the police right you you have
and he's supporting criminals you have
1600 insurrectionists who he pardoned on
day one um uh over 140 of whom violently
assaulted law enforcement they've been
let loose on the street and now we have
a story he's trying to get the names of
every FBI and doj person who worked on
those cases uh there's only one there's
no good reason to do that except to put
those names out there put those people
at risk he's supporting criminals and
he's he's attacking our law enforcement
uh uh both at the FBI and doj I think
it's absolutely outrages and again I
don't believe the American people will
stand for this I think that they are
going to make their displeasure known
and I'm not going to get into too many
details about it but I don't think the
courts are going to stand for it either
Brian and as you know I sent a letter to
the Department of Justice with a
distinguished former federal judge Nancy
gerner who's on our democracy Defenders
board Mark Zade one of our nation's uh
best uh and most experienced litigators
uh particularly uh representing uh doj
and FBI officials and we wrote the
Department of Justice yesterday and we
said there will be serious consequences
at law uh if uh you uh persist on this
court at least for today the names have
not been released uh and that would be a
tremendous tremendous wrong histo of
historical proportions and
uh folks are not going to accept that so
would it be fair to say that it is
unlikely that these prosecutors are
going to roll over in the face of these
attacks by the Trump Administration I've
been so pleased uh both doj and FBI at
the Integrity for example uh press
reports that uh FBI senior officials
starting with the acting director um
have insisted on following the law have
objected that some of the AC special
agents in charge around the country have
been strongly defending their people uh
there's no good reason to collect and
disseminate this information and um I
think Donald Trump made a big mistake
with his overreach in all of these
different areas because instead of
slowly boiling the Frog uh he's thrown
it in the microwave and it's heinous
it's it's heinous the reality is as
heinous as the metaphorical
misconduct Norm why is it up to you and
and your team to do so much of what
Congress should be doing I mean in a
normal world this is the kind of thing
especially Appropriations is the kind of
thing that the legislative branch would
would jealously guard and yet they're
completely content to just allow the
executive branch allow Donald Trump to
usurp all of their power all of their
autonomy and so now the onus is falling
on you and and groups you work with and
other groups that are aligned with the
mission when it should be the
legislative branch who should be who
should be there protecting their own
power Brian we know that in a democracy
ultimately it comes down to you and to
me and we can't democracy is only as
strong as its people and
unfortunately the majorities the GOP
majorities in the house and in the
Senate have shown uh bend the knee kiss
the ring and bow down sometimes Trump
doesn't even need to ask him
anticipatory obedience they fall down
before they've been hit yeah and um it's
a shocking abdication of their duty to
the American people to the American idea
to the nation that uh that uh they
relied on their rise to these important
positions but that's why the founders
and the framers had a system of checks
and balances and if article one the
legislature won't hold back article two
the presidency then we have article
three and the courts have been
active and ultimately you have the what
I refer to as the fourth and fifth
branches because you have our great
state officials many of them
particularly in blue States in purple
States Governors AGS Mayors they are
pushing back they're litigating and then
you have uh also the uh the classic
fourth Branch the media Norm do you have
the support that you need and is there
anything that that my audience can do I
mean look I I I know that there is that
there is an absolute hunger at least
among my audience and for myself too to
see people actually stand up and take
action against so much of this unlawful
Behavior by Donald Trump you're out
there doing the thing and and I think
that's that's commendable and I think a
lot of people are looking for that exact
type of action that exact type of
response so is there any way that my
audience can support the work that that
you and your teams are doing well Brian
thank you for having me back so often to
talk about uh the mission and really uh
at State democracy Defenders fund we're
part of a very large ecosystem of those
who are moving if they're inclined to
support our work in the court of law
visit our website State democracy
Defenders fund um it'll take you right
there there you can support us uh
financially any amount very welcome um
but it's not enough in the court of law
you also have to fight in the court of
public opinion that's why I left CNN
that was the subhead the real headline
was Jen Rubin left the Washington Post
we started our own media platform
inspired by Brian the contrarian that's
grown to almost uh
450,000 subscribers now we get well over
a million views the day um join us in
the battle in the court of public
opinion by subscribing to the contrarian
or by visiting State democracy Defenders
fund but the most important thing that
each and every one of you is doing truly
is listening to the conversation
thinking about how you can engage uh
getting ready uh As Americans uh to uh
peacefully and loyally defend our
constitution uh it really is the
ultimate um Safeguard of American
democracy is the American people so help
us out stay tuned in and we're going to
get through this thing together we're at
a Crossroads will we go the way of
Poland and Brazil which ousted
autocratic regimes like Trump's restored
democracy will we go the way of Hungary
or turkey they failed I believe in the
strength of the American people uh and I
think the American people from the
Grassroots to the
Treetops uh are starting toh wake up and
uh and get into the work of our
lifetimes toh stop this Democratic
backsliding and put us back on the path
that we can all be proud of As Americans
all right well Norm I I got to say again
on behalf of myself and all of my
viewers thank you so much for for the
work that you and your team are doing
for being out there and fighting I'll
put the link to State democracy
Defenders fund right here on the screen
and also in the post description of this
video I'll also put in the post
description of this video a link to the
contrarian which is the news Outlet you
Jen Rubin and your other colleagues have
founded um that are that are out there
holding truth to power so so uh I I
again appreciate all the work you're
doing and thank you for taking the time
thanks Brian and thanks to everybody
watching and listening and supporting
this sh shared effort to advance
American democracy and the backsliding
let's get back to what we can all be
proud of
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:05 pm
BREAKING: Trump Federal Funding Freeze Blocked for Third Time
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Feb 3, 2025
Another federal judge — this one for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
The order stems from a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and a coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses seeking to block guidance from the Trump administration that effectively pauses all federal funding via agency grants and loans. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] In a blockbuster decision a federal
judge in Washington DC has blocked
Donald Trump's effort to freeze federal
spending and loans. Welcome back to
democracy docket. I'm Marc Elias ... and I'm
Paige Moskowitz .
Let's get started Paige. This
is literally breaking news, and it is a
big one. A federal district court judge
in the District of Colombia has issued a
temporary restraining order blocking the
effect of Donald Trump's effort to put a
government-wide freeze on spending under
grants and loans. This will have big
impact for the various organizations and
individuals that are counting on that
money, and it is a huge loss for Donald
Trump's effort to wrestle control of the
federal spending power. Even though
Congress was not willing to put up a
fight, the good folks at Democracy
Forward and their nonprofit clients were.
And so to them, congratulations to
them and the American people!
[Paige Moskowitz] This all
started a week ago when the Office of
Management and Budget, or OMB, issued a
memo basically telling all the federal
agencies to stop spending money while
the Trump Administration tried to root
out "woke ideology, DEI, the
Green New Deal," which is not a law; it's
just proposed legislation, and do all
these things. And Marc, I don't want to
undercut the breaking news here but it
also kind of feels like a broken
record, because this is what, like the
third time we're saying that this memo
has been blocked? So explain to us kind
of the state of litigation at play.
[Marc Elias] Yeah,
so you're right. It may feel repetitive,
but this is the biggest one yet, okay? So
when this freeze was put in place
by OMB, this case was filed, and the
judge put a temporary halt on that
freeze pending the adjudication
of the claims. Then another case was
filed in the district of Rhode Island by
the various States Attorneys General,
and that Court also ordered it blocked.
But it only ordered it blocked for those
States. And after that order
was entered there still clearly was
activity going on within the federal
government, as if this memo was still in
effect. In other words, yes, the Rhode
Island Court had blocked it for the 20
some odd states that have been involved [in the case],
but it was clearly still the case that
agencies were not dispersing
funds. They were not making the loans.
They were not doing the things they were
supposed to do.
And so in now comes the
Democracy Forward case back into federal
court today, before a federal judge that
had a few choices. Number one, she could
say, you know what? You're right, government.
This has already been sort of
mooted, because it's all worked
itself out, and there's no harm. Or, the
Federal Judge could do exactly as she
did and say look, whether you are trying
to play games, or whether you are
operating in good faith, clearly this
memo is still having an impact, because I
am looking at the testimony and the
statements of real life plaintiff
organizations that are saying they're
not getting their grants, they're not
getting their loans, and this was never a
problem, but now all of a sudden there is
a freeze. So I want to be 100%
clear. The Judge basically said this
memo is suspended. Agencies are to act
as if it was never issued. And this
applies to all federal agencies.
It applies to grants in all 50
states. So enough with the nonsense.
So it
is a very broad relief that
this judge entered. And now
we're going to see whether the games end.
I kind of suspect they won't. I think
that we'll now have a game of cat and mouse.
But here's my message to the people
working in these federal agencies,
whether their career, or their political.
You've now got two federal judges who
have issued blocks of this order,
and this federal judge clearly means
business. And she's located in your
backyard. She's in Washington DC. So if I
were you, I would turn on the spigot for
those grants and loans that
were authorized by Congress, and stop
playing games. Otherwise, you may
find yourself on the losing end of a
contempt citation.
And by the way, Donald
Trump may have immunity, but no one else
in the federal government does from
criminal contempt and civil contempt.
No one has immunity from that.
So we'll see
whether this ends. Like I said, I'm not
naive. I'm not saying it won't.
But this gives a powerful new tool to
the people who are trying to rightfully
turn the spigot back on.
And let me say one
more word about this, Paige. You know
Democracy Docket has been all over this
from the very first filing, through this
order. And you know the Legacy Media has
been on and off while it focuses on a
bunch of other stuff. So please, if
you're not already, subscribe to
Democracy Docket, and it's free daily and
weekly newsletters. Click on the link
above, or in the show notes below, because
that is where you're going to get the
most unadulterated, honest coverage of
this. It is fiercely independent,
unabashedly pro-democracy. So sign up now.
[Paige Moskowitz] Marc, and in the middle of all this
litigation you had an interesting
development from the White House itself.
So last week, last Monday, the OMB issues
this memo. Litigation was filed, and the first
temporary block goes into effect,
blocks the memo. The next day, the OMB
rescinds the memo, and said and takes it
away that act like it never happened. Shortly
thereafter, you have White House Press
Secretary Karoline Leavitt post on Twitter,
saying that the memo may be rescinded,
but everything's still in effect: the
president still has the power to control
spending as he wishes. And that sent off
a new flurry of Court activity, right?
The Judge in Rhode Island said,
you're telling me this memo is rescinded, but
I have a tweet from the press secretary
saying it's basically still in effect.
You have the judge in DC today also
citing this tweet from Karoline Leavitt
saying the memo itself may be gone, but
the intention is still there. Which leads
to this very specific wording
from the Judge saying that the
defendants are enjoined from
implementing, giving effect to, or
reinstating under a different name the
directives in OMB memorandum
M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of
federal funds under all open awards.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, that's exactly right. And so I'm
glad you mentioned this. Because
this is what I
described as the game of cat and mouse,
right ? Here, a federal judge
had blocked this memo, and what does the
White House do? It sends its press
secretary out, just as you described,
to tweet and say, oh yeah, that may have
been rescinded, but it's still in effect
over here. And there is no way to read
this Court's order other than to say, "Cut
it out. Cut it out!"
And look, this judge went out of her way to say,
in pretty direct terms, that
what's going on here is
"disingenuous." That's her word, not mine.
And when you are disingenuous with a
Judge, and you're a lawyer, you
face one set of consequences when you
are working at a federal agency, and you face
a whole bunch more problems.
And like I said, I doubt
that the gamesmanship is over, but I
do believe we have a committed federal
judge right now who is going to see to
it that it doesn't
continue.
[Paige Moskowitz] So Marc, this order today is
from the Washington DC case. Now we have
in the second lawsuit in Rhode Island
a very interesting update happening
there today. The DOJ filed a brief in the
Rhode Island case basically saying it
doesn't think that the judge's order to
freeze the memo has any effect, and that they
don't have to implement it.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, and
again, I think this judge read that, and
took that into account in this
order. I mean, this judge makes
clear, as as you have said that
whatever name they put to this memo,
if they try to implement the policy in
the memo, they're going to be in contempt
of this court. This judge
ordered that the government must provide
written notice of the Court's order to
all agencies that received it, right? So
part of what the Department of Justice
did in the Rhode Island case, they said, well, we assume
we only have to send it to places that
were sued. And here
the judge is saying nope, it goes to
everybody who got your OMB memo, which is
basically the entire federal government, and
that the written notice shall instruct
the agencies that they may not take any
steps to implement, or give effect to, or
reinstate under a different name the
directives in that OMB memo. And that
the agencies are to release
disbursements on open awards that were
paused during the memo.
Finally it tells
them that they have to
file a status report on or
before February 7th showing that they've
complied with it. And this is the Court's
way of saying, all right, you got to send
this out, and I expect you back in my
courtroom in a week -- less than a week -- to
explain that you've done, what I've
ordered you to do. And boy, I don't want
to be a lawyer for the government who
has to show up and explain, if the other
side says that there were violations,
why the hell there were violations.
This is really good news. I cannot state
enough the tremendous work that
Democracy Forward did in
pursuing this like a dog with a bone.
Paige, you may or may not know this. I
helped create and found Democracy
Forward. I am the chair of their board.
And I'm very proud of them today. So good
work everybody. Let's take a moment to
celebrate this!
Unfortunately, this is not the only case
going on. And Paige,
we're going to be following a lot of
them at Democracy
Docket.
[Paige Moskowitz] Right, Marc. And we follow all of
these cases, because the impact of these
laws and decisions by the Trump
Administration are real. As the judge
noted in her order today, the potential
scope of the freeze is as great as $3
trillion dollars. And its effects are
difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs
point to news reports detailing
far-reaching effects: preschools could
not pay their staff; Los Angeles and
North Carolina were denied disaster
relief aid, and elderly Americans who
relied on subsidized programs for food
did not know if their next meal would
come. The importance of lawyers showing
up in court to fight these memos, these
executive actions issued by the
Trump Administration, are not just to
help our big picture Democracy, but
really make sure that the everyday lives
of Americans are not interrupted by
these anti-democratic forces.
[Marc Elias] That's
exactly right. And I'm glad you mention
that. Because it's too easy
sometimes to look at what Donald Trump
is doing around the federal government
and say, this is him seizing power. And
it's easy to say that this is him
empowering oligarchs, and it is. But at
the other end of this, the people who
will lose when that happens are the
people who don't get the
payments they deserve, the communities
that are not getting the money they
deserve, the people whose
citizenship is being threatened by his
unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship
order. You know, I can go on and on
down the line. And believe me: Paige
and I, we read your emails. We read your
comments. We know how worried you are. And
we take that seriously. It is one of the
jobs of Democracy Docket to cover what's
happening to democracy in courts, because
of the fear that this has engendered,
because of the concern that this has
created, because of the real world
consequences it has created for everyday
Americans, including so many of you who
are watching.
So keep keep sending us
your comments. Keep sending us your
emails. And please, make sure you are
subscribed to Democracy Docket. There is a
free option.
It is again in
the show notes below, and a link above.
And we will see you next time.
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Feb 3, 2025
Another federal judge — this one for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
The order stems from a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and a coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses seeking to block guidance from the Trump administration that effectively pauses all federal funding via agency grants and loans. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] In a blockbuster decision a federal
judge in Washington DC has blocked
Donald Trump's effort to freeze federal
spending and loans. Welcome back to
democracy docket. I'm Marc Elias ... and I'm
Paige Moskowitz .
Let's get started Paige. This
is literally breaking news, and it is a
big one. A federal district court judge
in the District of Colombia has issued a
temporary restraining order blocking the
effect of Donald Trump's effort to put a
government-wide freeze on spending under
grants and loans. This will have big
impact for the various organizations and
individuals that are counting on that
money, and it is a huge loss for Donald
Trump's effort to wrestle control of the
federal spending power. Even though
Congress was not willing to put up a
fight, the good folks at Democracy
Forward and their nonprofit clients were.
And so to them, congratulations to
them and the American people!
[Paige Moskowitz] This all
started a week ago when the Office of
Management and Budget, or OMB, issued a
memo basically telling all the federal
agencies to stop spending money while
the Trump Administration tried to root
out "woke ideology, DEI, the
Green New Deal," which is not a law; it's
just proposed legislation, and do all
these things. And Marc, I don't want to
undercut the breaking news here but it
also kind of feels like a broken
record, because this is what, like the
third time we're saying that this memo
has been blocked? So explain to us kind
of the state of litigation at play.
[Marc Elias] Yeah,
so you're right. It may feel repetitive,
but this is the biggest one yet, okay? So
when this freeze was put in place
by OMB, this case was filed, and the
judge put a temporary halt on that
freeze pending the adjudication
of the claims. Then another case was
filed in the district of Rhode Island by
the various States Attorneys General,
and that Court also ordered it blocked.
But it only ordered it blocked for those
States. And after that order
was entered there still clearly was
activity going on within the federal
government, as if this memo was still in
effect. In other words, yes, the Rhode
Island Court had blocked it for the 20
some odd states that have been involved [in the case],
but it was clearly still the case that
agencies were not dispersing
funds. They were not making the loans.
They were not doing the things they were
supposed to do.
And so in now comes the
Democracy Forward case back into federal
court today, before a federal judge that
had a few choices. Number one, she could
say, you know what? You're right, government.
This has already been sort of
mooted, because it's all worked
itself out, and there's no harm. Or, the
Federal Judge could do exactly as she
did and say look, whether you are trying
to play games, or whether you are
operating in good faith, clearly this
memo is still having an impact, because I
am looking at the testimony and the
statements of real life plaintiff
organizations that are saying they're
not getting their grants, they're not
getting their loans, and this was never a
problem, but now all of a sudden there is
a freeze. So I want to be 100%
clear. The Judge basically said this
memo is suspended. Agencies are to act
as if it was never issued. And this
applies to all federal agencies.
It applies to grants in all 50
states. So enough with the nonsense.
So it
is a very broad relief that
this judge entered. And now
we're going to see whether the games end.
I kind of suspect they won't. I think
that we'll now have a game of cat and mouse.
But here's my message to the people
working in these federal agencies,
whether their career, or their political.
You've now got two federal judges who
have issued blocks of this order,
and this federal judge clearly means
business. And she's located in your
backyard. She's in Washington DC. So if I
were you, I would turn on the spigot for
those grants and loans that
were authorized by Congress, and stop
playing games. Otherwise, you may
find yourself on the losing end of a
contempt citation.
And by the way, Donald
Trump may have immunity, but no one else
in the federal government does from
criminal contempt and civil contempt.
No one has immunity from that.
So we'll see
whether this ends. Like I said, I'm not
naive. I'm not saying it won't.
But this gives a powerful new tool to
the people who are trying to rightfully
turn the spigot back on.
And let me say one
more word about this, Paige. You know
Democracy Docket has been all over this
from the very first filing, through this
order. And you know the Legacy Media has
been on and off while it focuses on a
bunch of other stuff. So please, if
you're not already, subscribe to
Democracy Docket, and it's free daily and
weekly newsletters. Click on the link
above, or in the show notes below, because
that is where you're going to get the
most unadulterated, honest coverage of
this. It is fiercely independent,
unabashedly pro-democracy. So sign up now.
[Paige Moskowitz] Marc, and in the middle of all this
litigation you had an interesting
development from the White House itself.
So last week, last Monday, the OMB issues
this memo. Litigation was filed, and the first
temporary block goes into effect,
blocks the memo. The next day, the OMB
rescinds the memo, and said and takes it
away that act like it never happened. Shortly
thereafter, you have White House Press
Secretary Karoline Leavitt post on Twitter,
saying that the memo may be rescinded,
but everything's still in effect: the
president still has the power to control
spending as he wishes. And that sent off
a new flurry of Court activity, right?
The Judge in Rhode Island said,
you're telling me this memo is rescinded, but
I have a tweet from the press secretary
saying it's basically still in effect.
You have the judge in DC today also
citing this tweet from Karoline Leavitt
saying the memo itself may be gone, but
the intention is still there. Which leads
to this very specific wording
from the Judge saying that the
defendants are enjoined from
implementing, giving effect to, or
reinstating under a different name the
directives in OMB memorandum
M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of
federal funds under all open awards.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, that's exactly right. And so I'm
glad you mentioned this. Because
this is what I
described as the game of cat and mouse,
right ? Here, a federal judge
had blocked this memo, and what does the
White House do? It sends its press
secretary out, just as you described,
to tweet and say, oh yeah, that may have
been rescinded, but it's still in effect
over here. And there is no way to read
this Court's order other than to say, "Cut
it out. Cut it out!"
And look, this judge went out of her way to say,
in pretty direct terms, that
what's going on here is
"disingenuous." That's her word, not mine.
And when you are disingenuous with a
Judge, and you're a lawyer, you
face one set of consequences when you
are working at a federal agency, and you face
a whole bunch more problems.
And like I said, I doubt
that the gamesmanship is over, but I
do believe we have a committed federal
judge right now who is going to see to
it that it doesn't
continue.
[Paige Moskowitz] So Marc, this order today is
from the Washington DC case. Now we have
in the second lawsuit in Rhode Island
a very interesting update happening
there today. The DOJ filed a brief in the
Rhode Island case basically saying it
doesn't think that the judge's order to
freeze the memo has any effect, and that they
don't have to implement it.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, and
again, I think this judge read that, and
took that into account in this
order. I mean, this judge makes
clear, as as you have said that
whatever name they put to this memo,
if they try to implement the policy in
the memo, they're going to be in contempt
of this court. This judge
ordered that the government must provide
written notice of the Court's order to
all agencies that received it, right? So
part of what the Department of Justice
did in the Rhode Island case, they said, well, we assume
we only have to send it to places that
were sued. And here
the judge is saying nope, it goes to
everybody who got your OMB memo, which is
basically the entire federal government, and
that the written notice shall instruct
the agencies that they may not take any
steps to implement, or give effect to, or
reinstate under a different name the
directives in that OMB memo. And that
the agencies are to release
disbursements on open awards that were
paused during the memo.
Finally it tells
them that they have to
file a status report on or
before February 7th showing that they've
complied with it. And this is the Court's
way of saying, all right, you got to send
this out, and I expect you back in my
courtroom in a week -- less than a week -- to
explain that you've done, what I've
ordered you to do. And boy, I don't want
to be a lawyer for the government who
has to show up and explain, if the other
side says that there were violations,
why the hell there were violations.
This is really good news. I cannot state
enough the tremendous work that
Democracy Forward did in
pursuing this like a dog with a bone.
Paige, you may or may not know this. I
helped create and found Democracy
Forward. I am the chair of their board.
And I'm very proud of them today. So good
work everybody. Let's take a moment to
celebrate this!
Unfortunately, this is not the only case
going on. And Paige,
we're going to be following a lot of
them at Democracy
Docket.
[Paige Moskowitz] Right, Marc. And we follow all of
these cases, because the impact of these
laws and decisions by the Trump
Administration are real. As the judge
noted in her order today, the potential
scope of the freeze is as great as $3
trillion dollars. And its effects are
difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs
point to news reports detailing
far-reaching effects: preschools could
not pay their staff; Los Angeles and
North Carolina were denied disaster
relief aid, and elderly Americans who
relied on subsidized programs for food
did not know if their next meal would
come. The importance of lawyers showing
up in court to fight these memos, these
executive actions issued by the
Trump Administration, are not just to
help our big picture Democracy, but
really make sure that the everyday lives
of Americans are not interrupted by
these anti-democratic forces.
[Marc Elias] That's
exactly right. And I'm glad you mention
that. Because it's too easy
sometimes to look at what Donald Trump
is doing around the federal government
and say, this is him seizing power. And
it's easy to say that this is him
empowering oligarchs, and it is. But at
the other end of this, the people who
will lose when that happens are the
people who don't get the
payments they deserve, the communities
that are not getting the money they
deserve, the people whose
citizenship is being threatened by his
unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship
order. You know, I can go on and on
down the line. And believe me: Paige
and I, we read your emails. We read your
comments. We know how worried you are. And
we take that seriously. It is one of the
jobs of Democracy Docket to cover what's
happening to democracy in courts, because
of the fear that this has engendered,
because of the concern that this has
created, because of the real world
consequences it has created for everyday
Americans, including so many of you who
are watching.
So keep keep sending us
your comments. Keep sending us your
emails. And please, make sure you are
subscribed to Democracy Docket. There is a
free option.
It is again in
the show notes below, and a link above.
And we will see you next time.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 6:05 pm
Quakers Sue to Block ICE Agents from Houses of Worship This Weekend
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Jan 31, 2025
A group of Quaker meetings, represented by Democracy Forward, have filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's plan to enable federal immigration enforcement officials to enter houses of worship for their immigration enforcement actions. Now, the plaintiffs are seeking emergency relief to pause ICE enforcement on all houses of worship across the country in advance of weekend services. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] If you had any doubt about the depravity
of the Trump Administration consider
this the Quakers have had to go to
Federal Court to prevent DHS from
raiding houses of worship this weekend
welcome back to democracy doet I'm Mark
Elias and I'm Paige mosites let's get
started Paige I I have to say that I am
rarely shocked by anything that Donald
Trump is capable of I you know I
understand that he's an election denier
I understand his appointments or
election reers I understand that you
know some of his nominees don't believe
in vaccines even though they're going to
oversee vaccines they have you know
sucked up to Vladimir Putin even though
they're going to be you know potentially
in charge of the nation's intelligence
but page this one seems too far even for
Republicans Mark I agree wholeheartedly
now for decades US policy has been that
immigration wouldn't enforce their
actions at what was called sensitive
locations or protected locations these
are places like schools houses of
worship uh hospitals shelters things of
that nature the Trump Administration has
revoked that memo and said that DHS and
I would be enforcing immigration laws at
places like schools and houses of
worship yeah Paige and you know what's
really unbelievable about this you know
during covid we were constantly being
lectured by Republicans and their
right-wing allies about how terrible it
is and how constitutional it it it is
for States and localities that were
trying to control the spread of that
deadly virus putting in place
restrictions on public Gatherings and
one of the things they said is churches
and synagogues and mosques well maybe
they were mostly talking about churches
but places of worship have to be allowed
to continue to meet in person because of
religious freedom and we are constantly
lectured page also in the context of of
uh employers uh providing Health Care to
women
about the sensitive nature of of
religious rights and how religious
institutions should not be burdened with
having to provide basic health care to
women well here we are and you have uh
one of the oldest denominations in the
United States saying we are concerned
that when we hold our religious uh
meetings ice could break down the doors
and that would infringe on our
constitutional rights to practice our
religion and you know where where is the
rightwing standing up for the for the
Quakers today right Mark one of the
Quaker groups involved in this lawsuit
the Baltimore yearly meeting said in a
statement the very threat of government
officials wearing ice and blazoned
jackets outside of our religious service
will have a significant impact on our
communities and ability to practice our
faith we remain committed to our
religious command and will use the tools
available to defend our membership and
Faith yeah Paige and you know the
hypocrisy of this is just unending I
mean here is a political party that has
built itself around the notion of
protecting religious liberty uh and of
making sure that Christians in
particular can practice their faith you
know as you know Paige there was a
long-standing war on Christmas
apparently um but in any event uh you
know this is what they the propaganda
that they that they spew on Fox News and
elsewhere and yet when it comes to
immigration enforcement as terrible as
the Trump Administration wants to be in
a number of contexts. Did they really
have to start by targeting places of
worship
schools and hospitals? I mean really,
really? There was no other place
for them to start with executive orders
than in their first round to target
schools, places of worships, and hospitals?
[Paige Moskowitz] Mark, and to your point defending
religious freedom and freedom of
religion is a core American value right
like we have seen con we have seen
lawsuits come up again and again about
how the government has infr has
infringed on religious freedom now in
this lawsuit the Quaker groups and
democracy forward are asking for
emergency relief to block all ice
activities at all houses of worship
across the country this weekend so that
everyone could be able to go to their
own house of worship this weekend and
practice their Faith freely without fear
of interference from the government and
you know PA I think this brings up
another really important issue that I
want everyone to focus on which is the
role of of lawyers in the courts you
know there was a lot of bowing down in
advance of Donald Trump taking office
there has been a lot of bowing down to
Donald Trump since he's been in office
but it has really been the lawyers and
the legal organizations like democracy
forward that have been at the Forefront
of pushing back and they have had some
success I mean democracy forward itself
is the same organization page that you
and I talked about uh in the context of
the um anti- impoundment of funds you
know the the OMB effort to freeze
federal grants and uh uh and Loans uh
they and others also uh successfully
challenged the uh Birthright citizenship
order so I know that it is very it is
very um popular uh on the left for
people to bash the courts and Bash the
Supreme Court but I think we also have
to give do where it is earned and so far
Donald Trump for all of his alleged
competence coming in this time they have
not look that competent and they have
actually been losing case after case
after case right Mark in the case of the
birthright citizenship order we saw
multiple lawsuits filed very quickly
both by Democratic State Attorneys
generals as well as private civil and
immigrants rights groups that executive
order was blocked very quickly the OM
funding memo that you mentioned that was
blocked it's now been rescinded but you
know thanks to Caroline L it it's kind
of unclear what the status is so the
courts are ready to get involved there
toed then there she like tweeted but
back to this you know it's going to be
very interesting to see whether the the
the cons the Christian conservative
organizations that are usually very
litigious and are usually very organized
to file amicus briefs and to otherwise
get involved in cases it'll be very
interesting to see what they do here
whether they sit on the side lines uh
and act like they don't know that the
case is going on right which is like a
classic Republican politician response
right they they're like oh did Donald
Trump tweet something right like we'll
see whether these interest groups these
conservative groups take that approach
whether they show an ounce of principle
and actually stand with the Quakers uh I
wouldn't hold your breath for that or
whether they find some way to say oh no
no we as As Leaders of religious
institutions we want uh federal law
enforcement to be kicking down our doors
and uh searching our back rooms our
basements and our attics so we're going
to have to wait and see their
page I also think it's really
interesting how states are responding or
have already gotten involved in this ice
and immigration enforcement business
Texas for example before the Trump
Administration came back into Power had
passed a law requiring Health Care
settings to ask for immigration status
of patients and you're like why would
that matter they're there to receive
Healthcare it it's not it's not an
institution that would deal with
immigration in that way in Oklahoma
reportedly the state has plans there to
have schools ask their students about
their immigration status and again
citizenship status in those places
shouldn't matter because it's not a
government entity regulating and
enforcing immigration laws right and
this though goes even further than that
and nobody should should and this page
goes much fur further than that and
everyone needs to be paying attention to
this case specifically because you know
we have talked over and over again how
little spine there is to stand up
against Donald Trump in the Republican
part how Republican Senators Republican
house members have turned over their
constitutional rights and obligations to
to Donald Trump's WIS and how much of
the conservative movement has
compromised itself in terms itself into
pretzels to accommodate Donald Trump but
page this one
just have to wonder if it's a bridge too
far our Christian conservatives our
Republicans go our evangelicals going to
say we're fine with this we're fine with
an executive order that allows the
violation of houses of worship on the
weekends when houses of worships are
having uh their various Services uh at
meetings and celebrations so everyone
needs to pay attention to this make sure
you're subscribed to democracy. free
daily and weekly newsletters where
you'll be kept up to date on this and
all of the pro-democracy news going on
in America we'll see you next time
[Music]
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Jan 31, 2025
A group of Quaker meetings, represented by Democracy Forward, have filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's plan to enable federal immigration enforcement officials to enter houses of worship for their immigration enforcement actions. Now, the plaintiffs are seeking emergency relief to pause ICE enforcement on all houses of worship across the country in advance of weekend services. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] If you had any doubt about the depravity
of the Trump Administration consider
this the Quakers have had to go to
Federal Court to prevent DHS from
raiding houses of worship this weekend
welcome back to democracy doet I'm Mark
Elias and I'm Paige mosites let's get
started Paige I I have to say that I am
rarely shocked by anything that Donald
Trump is capable of I you know I
understand that he's an election denier
I understand his appointments or
election reers I understand that you
know some of his nominees don't believe
in vaccines even though they're going to
oversee vaccines they have you know
sucked up to Vladimir Putin even though
they're going to be you know potentially
in charge of the nation's intelligence
but page this one seems too far even for
Republicans Mark I agree wholeheartedly
now for decades US policy has been that
immigration wouldn't enforce their
actions at what was called sensitive
locations or protected locations these
are places like schools houses of
worship uh hospitals shelters things of
that nature the Trump Administration has
revoked that memo and said that DHS and
I would be enforcing immigration laws at
places like schools and houses of
worship yeah Paige and you know what's
really unbelievable about this you know
during covid we were constantly being
lectured by Republicans and their
right-wing allies about how terrible it
is and how constitutional it it it is
for States and localities that were
trying to control the spread of that
deadly virus putting in place
restrictions on public Gatherings and
one of the things they said is churches
and synagogues and mosques well maybe
they were mostly talking about churches
but places of worship have to be allowed
to continue to meet in person because of
religious freedom and we are constantly
lectured page also in the context of of
uh employers uh providing Health Care to
women
about the sensitive nature of of
religious rights and how religious
institutions should not be burdened with
having to provide basic health care to
women well here we are and you have uh
one of the oldest denominations in the
United States saying we are concerned
that when we hold our religious uh
meetings ice could break down the doors
and that would infringe on our
constitutional rights to practice our
religion and you know where where is the
rightwing standing up for the for the
Quakers today right Mark one of the
Quaker groups involved in this lawsuit
the Baltimore yearly meeting said in a
statement the very threat of government
officials wearing ice and blazoned
jackets outside of our religious service
will have a significant impact on our
communities and ability to practice our
faith we remain committed to our
religious command and will use the tools
available to defend our membership and
Faith yeah Paige and you know the
hypocrisy of this is just unending I
mean here is a political party that has
built itself around the notion of
protecting religious liberty uh and of
making sure that Christians in
particular can practice their faith you
know as you know Paige there was a
long-standing war on Christmas
apparently um but in any event uh you
know this is what they the propaganda
that they that they spew on Fox News and
elsewhere and yet when it comes to
immigration enforcement as terrible as
the Trump Administration wants to be in
a number of contexts. Did they really
have to start by targeting places of
worship
schools and hospitals? I mean really,
really? There was no other place
for them to start with executive orders
than in their first round to target
schools, places of worships, and hospitals?
[Paige Moskowitz] Mark, and to your point defending
religious freedom and freedom of
religion is a core American value right
like we have seen con we have seen
lawsuits come up again and again about
how the government has infr has
infringed on religious freedom now in
this lawsuit the Quaker groups and
democracy forward are asking for
emergency relief to block all ice
activities at all houses of worship
across the country this weekend so that
everyone could be able to go to their
own house of worship this weekend and
practice their Faith freely without fear
of interference from the government and
you know PA I think this brings up
another really important issue that I
want everyone to focus on which is the
role of of lawyers in the courts you
know there was a lot of bowing down in
advance of Donald Trump taking office
there has been a lot of bowing down to
Donald Trump since he's been in office
but it has really been the lawyers and
the legal organizations like democracy
forward that have been at the Forefront
of pushing back and they have had some
success I mean democracy forward itself
is the same organization page that you
and I talked about uh in the context of
the um anti- impoundment of funds you
know the the OMB effort to freeze
federal grants and uh uh and Loans uh
they and others also uh successfully
challenged the uh Birthright citizenship
order so I know that it is very it is
very um popular uh on the left for
people to bash the courts and Bash the
Supreme Court but I think we also have
to give do where it is earned and so far
Donald Trump for all of his alleged
competence coming in this time they have
not look that competent and they have
actually been losing case after case
after case right Mark in the case of the
birthright citizenship order we saw
multiple lawsuits filed very quickly
both by Democratic State Attorneys
generals as well as private civil and
immigrants rights groups that executive
order was blocked very quickly the OM
funding memo that you mentioned that was
blocked it's now been rescinded but you
know thanks to Caroline L it it's kind
of unclear what the status is so the
courts are ready to get involved there
toed then there she like tweeted but
back to this you know it's going to be
very interesting to see whether the the
the cons the Christian conservative
organizations that are usually very
litigious and are usually very organized
to file amicus briefs and to otherwise
get involved in cases it'll be very
interesting to see what they do here
whether they sit on the side lines uh
and act like they don't know that the
case is going on right which is like a
classic Republican politician response
right they they're like oh did Donald
Trump tweet something right like we'll
see whether these interest groups these
conservative groups take that approach
whether they show an ounce of principle
and actually stand with the Quakers uh I
wouldn't hold your breath for that or
whether they find some way to say oh no
no we as As Leaders of religious
institutions we want uh federal law
enforcement to be kicking down our doors
and uh searching our back rooms our
basements and our attics so we're going
to have to wait and see their
page I also think it's really
interesting how states are responding or
have already gotten involved in this ice
and immigration enforcement business
Texas for example before the Trump
Administration came back into Power had
passed a law requiring Health Care
settings to ask for immigration status
of patients and you're like why would
that matter they're there to receive
Healthcare it it's not it's not an
institution that would deal with
immigration in that way in Oklahoma
reportedly the state has plans there to
have schools ask their students about
their immigration status and again
citizenship status in those places
shouldn't matter because it's not a
government entity regulating and
enforcing immigration laws right and
this though goes even further than that
and nobody should should and this page
goes much fur further than that and
everyone needs to be paying attention to
this case specifically because you know
we have talked over and over again how
little spine there is to stand up
against Donald Trump in the Republican
part how Republican Senators Republican
house members have turned over their
constitutional rights and obligations to
to Donald Trump's WIS and how much of
the conservative movement has
compromised itself in terms itself into
pretzels to accommodate Donald Trump but
page this one
just have to wonder if it's a bridge too
far our Christian conservatives our
Republicans go our evangelicals going to
say we're fine with this we're fine with
an executive order that allows the
violation of houses of worship on the
weekends when houses of worships are
having uh their various Services uh at
meetings and celebrations so everyone
needs to pay attention to this make sure
you're subscribed to democracy. free
daily and weekly newsletters where
you'll be kept up to date on this and
all of the pro-democracy news going on
in America we'll see you next time
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Feb 04, 2025 7:18 pm
Tech’s Trump Backers—Zuckerberg, Musk—Hate CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]. It’s Now Been Paused.
by Sara Dorn
Forbes Staff
Feb 4, 2025,10:57am EST
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... en-paused/
Topline: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to halt work Monday, following months of anti-CFPB sentiment from President Donald Trump’s billionaire backers, including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, with Musk advocating for “deleting” the agency in his efforts to cut government spending.
• Key Facts: Bessent told agency staff in an email that it must stop all regulatory work and “public communications of any type,” citing the need to ensure operations are consistent with Trump’s executive orders, according to multiple reports.
• Staff were also reportedly instructed not to pursue enforcement actions or litigation.
• The move comes after work at the U.S. Agency for International Development was also halted over the weekend following an executive order during Trump’s first week in office ordering a temporary pause in U.S. foreign assistance.
• Reining in the CFPB has long been a target of Republicans and tech executives after the Biden administration implemented new regulations to address predatory lending and credit card and banking fees.
• Trump appointed Bessent to take over the agency after firing Biden-era director Rohit Chopra over the weekend.
What Has Elon Musk Said About Cfpb?
The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, has attacked the CFPB, joining a chorus of tech and finance titans who claim the agency has taken a heavy-handed approach to regulation. Musk, who is advising Trump on ways to scale back the size of the federal government, said in November he wanted to “delete CFPB” because “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies,” shortly after the agency announced a new rule to enhance oversight of big tech companies and others offering digital funds transfers and payment wallet apps.
What Have Mark Andreessen And Mark Zuckerberg Said About Cfpb?
Billionaires Marc Andreessen and Mark Zuckerberg also lashed out at the agency, which threatened to sue Meta last year over allegations it improperly used financial data in its advertising business. Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan in a podcast interview the CFPB “found some theory they wanted to investigate” and questioning whether there was “a quiet consensus” among regulators that they wanted to punish the tech industry. Andreessen—who has advised some members of the Trump administration—also alleged in an interview with Rogan the agency is “terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.”
What Have Republicans Said About Cfpb?
Republicans have sought to defund the CFPB and praised Chopra’s termination. Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., vowed Monday in a statement to help Bessent “finally rein in this unaccountable agency by putting the CFPB under the appropriations process, making it a bipartisan commission and providing appropriate statutory guardrails.” The CFPB receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, rather than through the congressional appropriations process, a mechanism designed to preserve its impartiality.
Key Background
The CFPB was formed in 2011, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Trump previously sought to limit the CFPB’s authority during his first term, appointing former Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., as its acting director. Mulvaney subsequently sent a budget request for the CFPB to the Federal Reserve for $0, ordered a hiring freeze and halted new enforcement actions, according to The New York Times. Former President Joe Biden subsequently hired Chopra to undo the deregulatory actions, and the agency under Chopra’s direction repeatedly clashed with big banks as Chopra spearheaded rules to limit overdraft fees, credit card late fees and eliminate medical debt from credit reports.
by Sara Dorn
Forbes Staff
Feb 4, 2025,10:57am EST
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... en-paused/
Topline: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to halt work Monday, following months of anti-CFPB sentiment from President Donald Trump’s billionaire backers, including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, with Musk advocating for “deleting” the agency in his efforts to cut government spending.
• Key Facts: Bessent told agency staff in an email that it must stop all regulatory work and “public communications of any type,” citing the need to ensure operations are consistent with Trump’s executive orders, according to multiple reports.
• Staff were also reportedly instructed not to pursue enforcement actions or litigation.
• The move comes after work at the U.S. Agency for International Development was also halted over the weekend following an executive order during Trump’s first week in office ordering a temporary pause in U.S. foreign assistance.
• Reining in the CFPB has long been a target of Republicans and tech executives after the Biden administration implemented new regulations to address predatory lending and credit card and banking fees.
• Trump appointed Bessent to take over the agency after firing Biden-era director Rohit Chopra over the weekend.
What Has Elon Musk Said About Cfpb?
The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, has attacked the CFPB, joining a chorus of tech and finance titans who claim the agency has taken a heavy-handed approach to regulation. Musk, who is advising Trump on ways to scale back the size of the federal government, said in November he wanted to “delete CFPB” because “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies,” shortly after the agency announced a new rule to enhance oversight of big tech companies and others offering digital funds transfers and payment wallet apps.
What Have Mark Andreessen And Mark Zuckerberg Said About Cfpb?
Billionaires Marc Andreessen and Mark Zuckerberg also lashed out at the agency, which threatened to sue Meta last year over allegations it improperly used financial data in its advertising business. Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan in a podcast interview the CFPB “found some theory they wanted to investigate” and questioning whether there was “a quiet consensus” among regulators that they wanted to punish the tech industry. Andreessen—who has advised some members of the Trump administration—also alleged in an interview with Rogan the agency is “terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.”
What Have Republicans Said About Cfpb?
Republicans have sought to defund the CFPB and praised Chopra’s termination. Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., vowed Monday in a statement to help Bessent “finally rein in this unaccountable agency by putting the CFPB under the appropriations process, making it a bipartisan commission and providing appropriate statutory guardrails.” The CFPB receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, rather than through the congressional appropriations process, a mechanism designed to preserve its impartiality.
Key Background
The CFPB was formed in 2011, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Trump previously sought to limit the CFPB’s authority during his first term, appointing former Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., as its acting director. Mulvaney subsequently sent a budget request for the CFPB to the Federal Reserve for $0, ordered a hiring freeze and halted new enforcement actions, according to The New York Times. Former President Joe Biden subsequently hired Chopra to undo the deregulatory actions, and the agency under Chopra’s direction repeatedly clashed with big banks as Chopra spearheaded rules to limit overdraft fees, credit card late fees and eliminate medical debt from credit reports.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests