Looking at the apportionment for ED's Higher Ed programs there are a bunch zero'd out: Child Care Access Means Parents In School, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, FIPSE. And $1.9 billion 'unallocated' openomb.org/file/11431544
Enormous impoundment-related changes in Trump/Vought's Circular A-11 update from Friday, which is OMB's guidance to agencies
They:
-removed the definition of impoundment
-said GAO's impoundment determinations don't matter
-claimed pocket rescission authority
-claimed profound deferral authority
🧵
But Trump's OMB has never addressed the 1975 OMB statement from that same year that they “did not plan the date of our rescission proposals so as to foreclose the usual requirement for release of funds and that we do not consider that this one case establishes a precedent.” bit.ly/4mZPQgG
The NYPost noted this AM that Trump’s OMB has pointed at past examples from Ford and Carter they claim are precedents for this power grab but looking more closely, those examples don’t cut it, you can read more here: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/past...
It is worth reading the law – in addition to the provision in §683(b) that requires OMB to spend the money unless Congress acts, you can see for yourself there is no provision that explicitly says OMB can withhold the money while Congress considers the proposal. bit.ly/3VqnGQa
Agree w/ Sen. Collins "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”
Impoundment Control Act says $ must be spent UNLESS Congress acts to rescind it - there's no get-out-of-spending-free card for OMB if they submit their paperwork late.
Seems like a good time to remind folks that sec. 718 of the FY24 FSGG Appropriations Act still applies to FY25 money, and bars the use of funds GOVERNMENT-WIDE “for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States” unless “authorized by Congress.”
Before Congress passed the ICA, plenty of courts heard these cases and provided relief to parties suing over impoundments, here are just a few. protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/u...
The ICA says "Nothing contained in this Act... shall be construed as... affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment; or superseding any provision of law which requires the obligation of budget authority or the making of outlays thereunder." §1001
Still making my way through this morning's D.C. Circuit opinion in the foreign aid funding case, but right off the bat am incredibly surprised a court would think the Impoundment Control Act precludes plaintiffs seeking relief when the ICA says the opposite. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
And the statement wraps explaining how a stay would “effectively cut the Congress’s purse strings” while denying the stay maintains the separation of powers balance laid out in our Constitution- granting Congress the power of the purse.
One of my favorite bits of the statement explains that apportionment is NOT an executive power — it is the executive exercising statutory authority granted by Congress though its power of the purse.
And makes clear that the disclosures the law requires include those pesky footnotes where funds are getting frozen.
Judge Henderson’s statement not only explains how mandating public disclosure of apportionments fits squarely within Congress’s power of the purse- but lays out why our Constitution grants that power to congress in the first place.
And that’s just CDC- other HHS programs, and funds at other agencies may also be frozen by footnotes that today’s decision could require OMB to finally make public once again— protectdemocracy.org/work/restori...
And while some CDC money may now be on its way out the door, other programs may still have their funding frozen in a footnote- www.npr.org/sections/sho...
Last week WSJ broke news that OMB was holding up CDC funds in an apportionment footnote- exactly the kind of info this website would force the agency to disclose www.wsj.com/politics/pol...
A DC Circuit appeals panel just unanimously denied OMB’s request for a stay in the @protectdemocracy.org case to get the apportionment website back online- so we can all see how OMB is managing your tax dollars - visibility we need now more than ever. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/...
I organized an economist amicus brief in V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, the "Liberation Day" tariffs case in which the government's appeal will soon be considered by the Federal Circuit Appeal Court.
Want to know more about vacancies in Senate-confirmed positions -- their causes, consequences, legal implications, and policy reforms? I wrote a primer aimed at social scientists and those who who like the social sciences. effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/bure...
Read this excerpt of an interview with Jay Bhattacharya, new NIH director.
And do not miss the last graf.
Via @jocelynkaiser.bsky.social
www.science.org/content/arti...
So great to see the Appropriations Committees - all four of their leaders on the majority and minority side - stand up for the law that requires OMB to make apportionments public. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/u...
PhD Timeline xkcd.com/3081
The OMB's removal of its apportionment website denies the American public information that is critical to ensuring transparency, ethics and integrity in government.
CREW and 9 other organizations urge the OMB to immediately restore this website.
Here I am this morning in the Washington Post on the Trump Administration's defiance of an "apportionment transparency" law Congress passed to rein in abuses like the first-term Ukraine shakedown. wapo.st/3FXgjey
Thread: this flew under the radar but is very concerning. Apportionment involves pro-forma OMB quarterly letters to agencies confirming they can spend $ as appropriated by Congress. OMB has now permanently shuttered the public apportionment website per Politico/letter from OMB to Senator Murray.
Revisiting this helpful explanation of apportionment from @bbkogan.bsky.social as we go into day 4 of OMB cutting off access to apportionments Congress required the agency to make public.
![-supremecourt.gov
Cite as: 604 U.S. _ (2025)
GoRSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A790
SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL. v. HAMPTON DELLINGER, SPECIAL COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(February 21, 2025]
This matter concerns the President's action to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger challenged his without-cause removal in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
See 5 U.S. C. §1211(b). On February 12,
2025, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) providing that Dellinger should remain in office until the court ruled on his motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for February 26, the day that the TRO expires.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2).
Pending before this Court is the Government's application to vacate the TRO. Dellinger has filed a Response in Opposition. The Government then filed a reply. The question is thus fully briefed before this Court.
Although it acknowledges that this Court typically does not have appellate jurisdiction over TROs, the Government urges us to construe the TRO as a preliminary injunction or to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in light of the core executive power assertedly restrained. Application 31-32; see 28 U.S. C. §1292(a)(1). In his opposition, Dellinger repeatedly notes that the TRO will "expire by its terms (in] eight [now five] days," Response in Opposition 1,
2
BESSENT v. DELLINGER
GoRSUCH, J., dissenting
that it "lasts only for a very short duration," id., at 15, and that it "is set to expire on February 26," id., at 39.
In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to t…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nvcdncwptloiqkfucqicx2hp/bafkreifzfg7oygtkifrk3pp6guj7oh7hifxs7c7kmpbhxmx2khrk5mn5ea)
The Supreme Court ruled President Trump cannot remove the Director of the Office of Special Counsel, a key watchdog agency, while a legal challenge moves forward.
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/u...
Unlike AOTUS, US law says POTUS must give a rationale for removing OSC head. Rule of law holds, for now.
OMB director Russ Vought has officially begun carrying out his section of Project 2025.
Technical thread to follow, but it’s really important - this is a major path through which the Trump administration will illegally impound funding, refusing to carry out some of our spending laws.
Courts *ordered* the Trump admin to stop its spending freeze
Yet ProPublica found place after place where $ is still frozen
-hot meals for elderly and disabled
-groceries for those in need
-maternal & child health services
-a clinic that serves the poor
www.propublica.org/article/trum...
