Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.
Hence the confusing email (only if you don’t know how the government works) that rescinded the original mechanism and replaced it with another.
> They then returned with a proposal of $700 billion in spending cuts, but that failed to convince some of those in the right flank.
It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
But unlike last time where he got there day 1 with “ok, what’s next”, he went in this time with a laundry list and an actual strategy.
Which is just smart. I’ve worked for big corps and it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
This article notes that many Republican senators were very upset about Trump's order: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5115026-white-house-fund... I think senators know how the government works. If the "spending freeze" was following the law, why would Republican senators be upset about it?
(Also, in your original comment you claimed there was "Allowance for emergency payments to keep the lights on". But the article notes that some federally-funded nonprofits "couldn’t access funds to make payroll". People rely on their paycheck to pay bills! If anyone stops getting their paycheck, that's not "keeping the lights on".)
A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...
> It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.
> it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.
Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President can unilaterally cut programs and spending that Congress specifically established by law? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)
Oh I agree, if the law Congress passed was explicit in the funding and the purpose of it.
My comment was more around the multitude of spending in the federal government that is not tied to a specific purpose approved by Congress.
Which is why USAID is likely being targeted.
I would argue that the room to maneuver is where the courts will need to decide - if the President is still following the law but not spending all the money, what happens? Or if the money spent is shifted significantly but still represents a “good faith” effort to follow the law, is that allowed?
They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".
> you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law
It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...