OPINION:
Controversy erupted as President Trump blocked taxpayer cash from going out the door to left-wing groups, spreading panic throughout the grifting class.
“There was a short-term pause or funding freeze on certain discretionary spending payments such as government grants, only for us to quickly look at the scams, dishonesty, waste and abuse that’s taken place in our government for too long,” the president said Wednesday.
Blame former President Joseph R. Biden for the controversy. After Democrats were trounced at the ballot box, his minions did everything they could to dole out as many grants as possible to allies before being kicked out on Inauguration Day. The new commander in chief wants to stop what he can.
According to the White House, the moratorium helped identify checks Uncle Sam was about to drop into the mail for illegal alien resettlement, for diversity, equity and inclusion training and for “diversity scholarships” in Burma.
In line with the new priorities, Secretary of State Marco Rubio placed a 90-day hold on foreign aid. “The State Department will no longer undertake any activities that facilitate or encourage mass migration,” the department explained on X.
The Department of Homeland Security followed, refusing to bankroll the outside groups that guide illegal aliens on their journey sneaking into our country. In an interview with Fox News, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described this network of publicly funded nongovernmental organizations as “a shadow operation,” adding, “We’re not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country.”
That didn’t sit well with U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan. Her Honor put a pause on the funding with a hearing scheduled for Monday morning. She says she wants to review the arguments advanced by the National Council of Nonprofits, a group that hates the idea of its members being kicked off the gravy train.
As a recent appointee of Mr. Biden, Judge AliKhan is likely to side with NGOs against a Republican administration. But there may not be much a federal judge can do to force the executive to pay for a prior administration’s priorities.
This White House appears eager to fight for the principle that the president’s constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” means he can’t knowingly waste money, even if it’s appropriated by Congress.
Since the founding of the country, Capitol Hill’s power of purse meant no money can be disbursed without a congressional appropriation — not that it can force unwanted spending. That changed in 1974, when congressional Democrats took advantage of Watergate to pass the Impoundment Control Act to encourage frivolous expenditures.
The act gives Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, a legislative branch employee, authority to evaluate whether Mr. Trump’s order is appropriate. Mr. Dodaro can file a lawsuit if he believes the freeze is unlawful.
Earlier this year, Mr. Dodaro complained that Uncle Sam’s books were such a mess that it was impossible to properly audit them: “These serious financial management weaknesses and unsustainable long term fiscal path further underscore the need for urgent attention, accountability, and transparency.”
Forcing the White House to underwrite the useless projects that voters rejected in November won’t mend the broken budgetary process, but ditching the ’70s-era impoundment rules would be a good first step toward restoring fiscal sanity.
No matter how the legal battle is resolved, the clash will at least expose the left’s shameless raid on the public treasury to advance its agenda and reward its allies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.