Trump remains eager for a budget battle with Congress, despite the memo fiasco
The Trump administration plans to eliminate funding for initiatives it considers misaligned with its priorities, but it did not intend to significantly cut funding for a wider range of programs.
TroibNews 
The Trump administration has been eager for a legal confrontation regarding its power to bypass Congress on spending laws since the former president's tenure. However, instigating chaos in Washington over a poorly composed memo was not part of the strategy.
The administration aims to cut funding for programs it considers misaligned with its priorities, such as foreign aid, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and environmental expenditures. Yet, it did not intend to disrupt funding across a broad range of programs when the White House budget office released a memo on Monday that effectively brought all federal financial assistance programs to a standstill, as indicated by two senior administration officials who spoke anonymously about private discussions.
The memo represented an audacious attempt to challenge Congress’s fiscal authority, rooted in a theory espoused by Russell Vought, Trump's appointee as director of the White House budget office, proposing that the executive branch is not obligated to spend funds that do not fit its objectives. While the White House's intentions were indeed sweeping, the ramifications were more far-reaching than anticipated.
Members of Trump’s close circle expressed frustration over the OMB memo, arguing on Wednesday that it bypassed established channels and lacked proper vetting. Its broad language posed significant political and legal challenges—drawing ire even from some Republican lawmakers concerned about the impact on their constituents and placing the administration in a precarious legal situation. This has already led to one judge pausing the spending freeze and another poised to take similar action.
“It was just poorly written from policy people, not comms people — and so people took that first line and ran with it, which was a ‘freeze of federal funding,’” noted one senior official who contended the memo should have had a more limited focus.
This confusion inexplicably left conservatives, traditionally critical of programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, scrambling to clarify that those funds were unaffected.
In response, the administration has attempted to remedy the situation by rescinding its initial memo to alleviate some of the immediate panic and misapprehension.
Despite this, the president's aggressively formulated executive orders issued prior to the memo have already caused disruptions—leaving billions in federal spending uncertain as agencies assess whether they are in compliance with directives aimed at dismantling Biden administration initiatives related to the environment and other Democratic priorities, many of which received congressional approval.
Clarity may only be achieved when the courts intervene. Legal experts largely believe that the administration's argument will not prevail, yet Vought and others seem eager for a judicial showdown, possibly anticipating a favorable ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court.
The disputes over the executive branch's authority to withhold spending are currently in progress, especially after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that it was only the memo—not the federal funding freeze affecting the same programs—that had been rescinded.
For example, federal funding remains frozen for certain environmental initiatives put in place by previous administrations, such as the $7 billion Solar For All program and the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, both highlighted in Trump's executive order as expenditures he sought to halt.
James Capretta, who served as associate director of the White House’s budget office under former President George W. Bush, remarked that the Trump administration’s “very expansive view of” the executive branch’s authority to cancel or delay federal spending—actions known as impoundments—became muddled amid the confusion surrounding the memo.
“I think their intention was to do something pretty expansive—to halt new spending until the new people coming in have a chance to review what’s going on,” Capretta explained. “They just wrote it in way too expansive of a way, covering all kinds of things that are governed by laws that they have to change first if they want to change how the money is spent.”
“The impoundment issue is still there, but it’s going to be tested, I think, later when they’re ready,” he added.
Trump’s White House has made no apologies for freezing congressionally allocated funds that do not align with his agenda—an approach that encompasses everything from infrastructure payments to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government. Additionally, the administration remains frustrated with the media for inflating fears of broader cuts, which officials argue were never intended.
However, there is an acknowledgment among officials that their OMB document was not adequately prepared for public scrutiny—evoking comparisons to the haphazard early actions of his first term, such as the quickly challenged ban on migrants from majority-Muslim countries—and that it was overly broad.
“Everyone got freaked out and confused by the guidance memo,” said one senior administration official. “If you go back into the history of guidance memos, there are probably none that have warranted any coverage—let alone wall-to-wall coverage."
Nevertheless, due to the broad language in many of Trump’s executive orders, federal agencies will likely need clearer directives from the White House budget office to convert the president’s general policy statements into actionable steps. At least one senior Trump official acknowledged that rescinding the OMB memo would not resolve the uncertainties surrounding the specifics of what is being cut, suggesting that another memo may soon be necessary.
Neither the White House nor a spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget responded to requests for comment.
Within the federal agencies impacted by the unclear guidance from the White House, disorder continues. Grantees were informed via email on Tuesday that they would temporarily be unable to receive new disbursements, leaving them in limbo. Even after receiving later assurances from some administrators that certain payments would still be available, many overseeing aid programs are proceeding cautiously, uncertain of what further changes may arise.
“It’s a mess—no one knows what we are allowed to be doing and telling grantees,” lamented one official at the Department of Justice. “We have no clear and understandable guidance from leadership. Meetings are being canceled left and right. We are trying to get back to the rhythm assuming the regular course of business is in place. But everyone is really cautious.”
The uncertainty has also reverberated through the hundreds of clinics nationwide providing free and subsidized contraception, STI testing, and other services to millions of low-income individuals through the Title X family planning program. This week, clinics endeavored to obtain clarity on the funding situation as Health and Human Services staff have been barred from external communication.
“People were trying to get in [to our government payment system] and nobody could get in, and they were getting different types of messages,” stated Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. “We didn’t know when that hold was going to be lifted.”
Though funding has resumed, Coleman cautioned that some clinics within the network lack alternative funding sources and would be forced to close if Title X funding were disrupted again. For now, many are conserving resources to weather any interruptions. Coleman fears that many may not survive, especially if Medicaid funding is frozen as well.
“I don't care how many days of cash you have on hand; that's existential,” she asserted.
Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
The administration aims to cut funding for programs it considers misaligned with its priorities, such as foreign aid, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and environmental expenditures. Yet, it did not intend to disrupt funding across a broad range of programs when the White House budget office released a memo on Monday that effectively brought all federal financial assistance programs to a standstill, as indicated by two senior administration officials who spoke anonymously about private discussions.
The memo represented an audacious attempt to challenge Congress’s fiscal authority, rooted in a theory espoused by Russell Vought, Trump's appointee as director of the White House budget office, proposing that the executive branch is not obligated to spend funds that do not fit its objectives. While the White House's intentions were indeed sweeping, the ramifications were more far-reaching than anticipated.
Members of Trump’s close circle expressed frustration over the OMB memo, arguing on Wednesday that it bypassed established channels and lacked proper vetting. Its broad language posed significant political and legal challenges—drawing ire even from some Republican lawmakers concerned about the impact on their constituents and placing the administration in a precarious legal situation. This has already led to one judge pausing the spending freeze and another poised to take similar action.
“It was just poorly written from policy people, not comms people — and so people took that first line and ran with it, which was a ‘freeze of federal funding,’” noted one senior official who contended the memo should have had a more limited focus.
This confusion inexplicably left conservatives, traditionally critical of programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, scrambling to clarify that those funds were unaffected.
In response, the administration has attempted to remedy the situation by rescinding its initial memo to alleviate some of the immediate panic and misapprehension.
Despite this, the president's aggressively formulated executive orders issued prior to the memo have already caused disruptions—leaving billions in federal spending uncertain as agencies assess whether they are in compliance with directives aimed at dismantling Biden administration initiatives related to the environment and other Democratic priorities, many of which received congressional approval.
Clarity may only be achieved when the courts intervene. Legal experts largely believe that the administration's argument will not prevail, yet Vought and others seem eager for a judicial showdown, possibly anticipating a favorable ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court.
The disputes over the executive branch's authority to withhold spending are currently in progress, especially after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that it was only the memo—not the federal funding freeze affecting the same programs—that had been rescinded.
For example, federal funding remains frozen for certain environmental initiatives put in place by previous administrations, such as the $7 billion Solar For All program and the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, both highlighted in Trump's executive order as expenditures he sought to halt.
James Capretta, who served as associate director of the White House’s budget office under former President George W. Bush, remarked that the Trump administration’s “very expansive view of” the executive branch’s authority to cancel or delay federal spending—actions known as impoundments—became muddled amid the confusion surrounding the memo.
“I think their intention was to do something pretty expansive—to halt new spending until the new people coming in have a chance to review what’s going on,” Capretta explained. “They just wrote it in way too expansive of a way, covering all kinds of things that are governed by laws that they have to change first if they want to change how the money is spent.”
“The impoundment issue is still there, but it’s going to be tested, I think, later when they’re ready,” he added.
Trump’s White House has made no apologies for freezing congressionally allocated funds that do not align with his agenda—an approach that encompasses everything from infrastructure payments to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government. Additionally, the administration remains frustrated with the media for inflating fears of broader cuts, which officials argue were never intended.
However, there is an acknowledgment among officials that their OMB document was not adequately prepared for public scrutiny—evoking comparisons to the haphazard early actions of his first term, such as the quickly challenged ban on migrants from majority-Muslim countries—and that it was overly broad.
“Everyone got freaked out and confused by the guidance memo,” said one senior administration official. “If you go back into the history of guidance memos, there are probably none that have warranted any coverage—let alone wall-to-wall coverage."
Nevertheless, due to the broad language in many of Trump’s executive orders, federal agencies will likely need clearer directives from the White House budget office to convert the president’s general policy statements into actionable steps. At least one senior Trump official acknowledged that rescinding the OMB memo would not resolve the uncertainties surrounding the specifics of what is being cut, suggesting that another memo may soon be necessary.
Neither the White House nor a spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget responded to requests for comment.
Within the federal agencies impacted by the unclear guidance from the White House, disorder continues. Grantees were informed via email on Tuesday that they would temporarily be unable to receive new disbursements, leaving them in limbo. Even after receiving later assurances from some administrators that certain payments would still be available, many overseeing aid programs are proceeding cautiously, uncertain of what further changes may arise.
“It’s a mess—no one knows what we are allowed to be doing and telling grantees,” lamented one official at the Department of Justice. “We have no clear and understandable guidance from leadership. Meetings are being canceled left and right. We are trying to get back to the rhythm assuming the regular course of business is in place. But everyone is really cautious.”
The uncertainty has also reverberated through the hundreds of clinics nationwide providing free and subsidized contraception, STI testing, and other services to millions of low-income individuals through the Title X family planning program. This week, clinics endeavored to obtain clarity on the funding situation as Health and Human Services staff have been barred from external communication.
“People were trying to get in [to our government payment system] and nobody could get in, and they were getting different types of messages,” stated Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. “We didn’t know when that hold was going to be lifted.”
Though funding has resumed, Coleman cautioned that some clinics within the network lack alternative funding sources and would be forced to close if Title X funding were disrupted again. For now, many are conserving resources to weather any interruptions. Coleman fears that many may not survive, especially if Medicaid funding is frozen as well.
“I don't care how many days of cash you have on hand; that's existential,” she asserted.
Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
