Kerby Anderson

Once President Trump was back in office, he ordered a pause on federal grants so that the incoming cabinet could evaluate what was being pushed through in the last few months of the Biden administration. As you might expect, the reaction from Democrats and the legacy press was over the top.

Fortunately, the editors of The Wall Street Journal decided to address what they called “The Spending Freeze Panic” explaining that the “pause on federal grants wasn’t illegal and didn’t even affect most spending.” They remind us, “It’s well within Mr. Trump’s executive authority to pause disbursement of discretionary funds to ensure they comply with the law and his priorities.”

The editors did add that “the White House didn’t help itself with a lack of clarity on the details.” And they pointed to a follow-up memo from the Trump administration that the pause would not affect financial assistance to individuals (such as food stamps, small business grants, aid to farmers) or even entitlement programs (like Medicaid and children’s nutrition).

There is a good reason for this pause. Yesterday I mentioned Trump’s executive order on DEI programs. There were federal grants heading out the door that required “diversity statements” for government funding, even though the Supreme Court ruled against racial preferences in education. The editors of The Wall Street Journal also remind us of the EPA grant that went for “climate justice” to leftist groups who were calling for the abolition of Israel and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A spending pause is constitutional. The Impoundment Control Act (which might someday be declared unconstitutional by the current court) would only apply if the president refuses to ever spend funds. The spending freeze panic was “much ado about nothing.”