|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
BOSTON — Reacting to reports that President Donald Trump rescinded his federal funds freeze order, U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan warned “the fight is far from over” and the White House made clear that efforts to “end the egregious waste of federal funding” will continue.
“Today, after immense public pressure, Donald Trump backed down from his reckless decision to withhold federal funding for programs that working families rely on to make ends meet,” Trahan said in a statement. “This is a major victory — one made possible by millions of Americans who demanded that their government work for them, not make it harder to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads.”
Matthew Vaeth, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, on Wednesday afternoon rescinded a memo that would have initiated the freeze on federal grants, less than two days after the memo was filed.
The Monday evening memo sparked controversy around the country, including in Massachusetts where Gov. Maura Healey said it would be “devastating.” A federal judge in D.C. blocked the freeze on Tuesday.
Trahan said the Office of Management and Budget’s initial order caused “widespread confusion.”
“While families were left wondering how they would afford rent, groceries, and medical care, House Republicans were dining on $31 Trump-branded burgers at his luxury golf club in Florida — scheming not just to freeze funding, but to slash it entirely,” Trahan said.
The Westford Democrat added, “Their plan is simple: reward their billionaire donors with tax cuts and force working Americans to pay the price by gutting the same programs that Donald Trump ground to a halt yesterday — Medicaid, food assistance, rental aid, cancer research, and so much more.”
Shortly after news broke Wednesday afternoon that Trump’s budget office rescinded the memo, the president’s spokesperson posted on social media that the administration would still pursue a federal funding freeze.
“This is NOT a recession 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 thoroughly implemented,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X.
Her post appears to refer to orders Trump signed last week, which directed government agencies to review and reduce spending, and suggests a continued intent to find other ways to put funding freezes into practice; though the Office of Management and Budget memo that was issued Monday evening is no longer in force.
In a statement Leavitt shared via email to the New York Times, she said OMB rescinded the memo “to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage.”
“The executive orders issued by the president on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments. This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the president’s orders on controlling federal spending. In the coming weeks and months, more executive action will continue to end the egregious waste of federal funding,” the statement said, the Times reported.
At a press conference on an unrelated topic Wednesday afternoon, reporters asked Healey a number of questions about the funding freeze just minutes before news broke about the memo being rescinded.
Healey called it “an illegal abuse of power and an overreach by the president.”
She listed programs that would be affected if the federal government drew back funding: Title I financial support to schools with high numbers of low-income students; support for early education and child care; special education; Pell Grants; Head Start centers; Medicaid; federally-funded heating assistance; food benefits; construction projects.
Asked whether the state could continue to support its popular universal free school meals program without federal support, Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler said, “No, is my quick answer to that.”
Attorney General Andrea Campbell said Tuesday that Massachusetts officials had been unable on Monday to draw almost $40 million in Medicaid funding.
Asked on Wednesday if Massachusetts was still locked out of Medicaid funding, Healey replied: “I don’t believe the system is fully operable.” She added, “But we’ll have to confirm where it exactly is. We didn’t have clarification as of a short while ago.”
Massachusetts Nonprofit Network CEO Jim Klocke said Wednesday that the news was a relief for nonprofits worried about cutting employee hours and layoffs in the face of federal funding cuts, but that they’re now worried about Trump’s plan for the upcoming federal budget and what it could mean for the sector.
“In the immediate days ahead, there’s no funding freeze. But will they try again in the days ahead? What will they do with budget language several weeks from now? The federal government only has enough money to keep operating through March 14 — that’s what we’re focused on now,” he said.
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey said he viewed Trump’s ongoing approach to federal funding as “bypassing the courts.”
“Trump’s administration isn’t governing — it’s careening from chaos to crisis that it created, leaving people guessing whether life-saving services, school lunches, home heating, health care, and public safety are going to be funded day by day,” Markey said in a statement. “The collective outrage of literally everyone got them to rescind their latest directive to cut off federal money, but the Trump administration has made clear they intend to proceed with their callously cruel plan of stalling or stopping essential federal funding.”
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, a Democrat from Springfield, added: “Any attempt by the Trump Administration to withhold federal funding is unconstitutional and an executive overreach — period.”
How could Trump be so cruel? He can investigate these funds while they stay in effect. To cut them off without warning is absolutely inhuman. People depend on those programs!
Seems to me the only people worried are those that have been receiving everything for free!!!
Make them earn it and pay for it themselves otherwise they will never go away. Welfare is supposed to be temporary not a job career.
How about those of us who help the people who need help. Anyone of us is only a medical catastrophe or natural disaster away from needing this assistance. Maybe if the federal minimum wage was raised from $7.25 hour to match the cost of living folks wouldn’t need these safety nets. The same folks who work 2 and 3 jobs but still can’t afford the unreasonable rents, having to choose whether to pay the rent or put food on the table.
It’s long overdue for funding Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, rent vouchers, and section 8 housing that has gone from people who need temporary as a reason people who choose to live on tax payer dollars funding welfare, Medicaid, housing, and pood stamps, the only people not complaining are those who choose not to work , and it’s extremely unfair to the rest who are forced to pay them for them and the children who choose not to work for a living and pay Federal, state, Medicare, food, healthcare and section 8 housing, and rental payments. It’s completely wrong for the working tax payers to pay for the needs for the people who choose to stay home.
You can drive 5 miles in any direction and find a “Help Wanted sign, so there are many jobs that are available that New Bedford that unemployed people refuse to to work for a living, and it’s sickening to pay for the families who prefer not to work instead of finding gainful employment with Healthcare. All abled bodies should be forced to earn a living and stop expecting Massachusettes employed workers to support them.
In response to Rick and anyone else who feels as he does: I was enraged, as well as “worried.” I am receiving nothing “for free,” but someday you or I or anyone may need help from one of those programs–directly or indirectly. No one is immune to cancer. Do you not want cancer research to continue to be funded? That is just one example. In any case, Trump violated the law with this action, and it was not the first time he has violated the law. Thankfully, this time a federal judge in D.C. acted quickly to stop him from this outrageous action.