A fear that Trump is seeking unlimited power by freezing foreign aid

On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump attempted to exercise extensive executive authority by ordering a temporary halt to federal financial assistance. This abrupt move led to widespread confusion and concern, as programs like Meals on Wheels and low-income housing assistance were suddenly left in uncertainty. 

The initial methodical approach of Trump's second term quickly gave way to chaos, reminiscent of the turmoil that marked his first term and contributed to his 2020 election loss. This situation has ignited a significant legal battle over the limits of presidential power, a dispute likely to reach the Supreme Court.

Trump's image as a bold disruptor resonates with many Americans dissatisfied with the Washington establishment. His decisive election victory provides him with a mandate for change.

However, the spending freeze, along with other early actions such as dismissing Justice Department prosecutors and attempting to repeal birthright citizenship, suggests that Trump views presidential power as nearly limitless, believing he can unilaterally determine legality. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, "The White House Counsel’s Office believes that this is within the President’s power to do it, and therefore, he’s doing it."

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiated the upheaval with a memo ordering a temporary pause in "all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance." While Medicare benefits and individual assistance were exempted, the directive caused widespread confusion among lawmakers, state governments, local leaders, and NGOs, who were left uncertain about which programs were affected. In theory, a wide range of programs, from Pentagon initiatives to small-town projects, were at risk.

Efforts by Trump's team to clarify that the freeze was intended to review funding for conflicts with new policies, such as banning diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, only added to the confusion. 

Leavitt was initially unable to confirm whether Medicaid was affected; she later clarified it was not, but the program's portal was down in many states for much of the day. Donald Kettl, former dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, commented, "I suspect that the admin here has bitten off more here than intended to chew."

By evening, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan imposed a temporary halt on the aid freeze until Monday. AliKhan noted, "The government doesn’t know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause." This confusion overshadowed the disciplined start of Trump's second term.

The rapid succession of presidential directives aimed at transforming the nation seemed to have caught the OMB unprepared for the resulting consequences.

Trump's core supporters are unlikely to be swayed by this incident. However, with limited time and political capital to implement significant changes, perceptions of his presidency remain crucial. Ironically, the chaos highlighted the importance of many government programs thrown into uncertainty, even as Trump plans significant federal spending cuts. This situation may serve as a political warning for Elon Musk, who is leading the new Department of Government Efficiency and plans to slash federal budgets.

The deepest concerns stem from Trump's attempt to exercise unrestrained authority in a presidency already marked by questionable power grabs. By seeking to freeze loans and grants and align them with his priorities, Trump aimed to redirect or halt funding already appropriated by Congress. Kettl observed, "It is a direct challenge against Congress and its ability to be able to approve and authorize its expenditure of money."

Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, stated that the freeze was necessary because bureaucrats were pushing out funds for "wicked and pernicious" policies. Leavitt insisted that Trump was within his rights to analyze federal spending, stating it was "exactly what the American people elected President Trump to do."

While Trump's election victory indicates that many Americans had lost confidence in the government and were frustrated with previous spending, winning an election does not grant a president the right to ignore the law. The government spending in question was authorized by Congress, which holds the constitutional power of the purse. Trump can propose new laws but cannot simply disregard existing ones.

A similar disregard for the law was evident in the president’s dismissal of prosecutors who had investigated him. These career prosecutors are not political appointees and have civil service protections.

Trump and his allies argue that liberal bureaucrats hinder Republican presidents' goals. The dismissed officials were told they could not be trusted to carry out Trump’s agenda, even though prosecutors are meant to follow the law, not political directives.

The White House argues that the president’s Article Two constitutional powers allow him to fire anyone, an argument likely headed for the courts. Trump’s effort to repeal birthright citizenship as part of his immigration crackdown also appears to contradict the Constitution, which the president lacks the power to amend.

Trump’s firing of more than a dozen watchdog officials from government agencies seems to follow a similar principle—that existing laws do not apply to him. The statute requires Trump to give 30 days’ notice to Congress of such terminations, which he declined to do. Miller asserted that the longstanding law is unconstitutional, stating, "Absolutely it is. I don’t even think so. I know it is."

However, presidents and their advisers are not kings and do not get to decide what is constitutional. If they did, the system of U.S. democratic governance would collapse. Corey Brettschneider, a constitutional law professor at Brown University, noted, "What democracy requires isn’t that as soon as the president comes into power, they could wipe away everything that came before." He emphasized that laws bind not just citizens but also the president.

Tuesday's events further clarified that Trump intends to push presidential power to its limits. There are growing suspicions that the administration is initiating political battles and legal fights to get the conservative Supreme Court to further expand the scope of the presidency.

The combination of a president who believes in his own unrestrained power and the recent weakening of restraints on the executive suggest he may get a long way toward his goal.