The order to shut off federal grants reveals a vision of the presidency at odds with basic democratic principles.
by Zack BeauchampJan 29, 2025, 6:30 AM CST
Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here.
Late on Monday night, His Royal Majesty’s administration sent out a stunning memo suspending all federal grants. Chaos followed, with everything from veteran’s charities facing financial ruin to reports of Medicaid portals shutting down across the country.
It was so bad, that on Tuesday, the administration released a second piece of guidance attempting to clarify the initial memo’s scope. At the end of the work day, a federal court issued a “brief administrative stay” while litigation on its overall legality plays out.
It appears quite plausible that courts strike down the order permanently. Existing law, including both Supreme Court rulings and federal legislation, have found that the president cannot “impound” (meaning unilaterally stop) funds that Congress has authorized to be spent. Expert legal opinion on how this applies to the memo is divided: Some believe His Royal Majesty’s order is obviously unlawful in its entirety, while others think it’s possible he could get away with a truly limited pause of some spending.
