this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
253 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19609 readers
4704 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s freeze on all federal grants and loans, which was set to begin Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, pauses the freeze until February 3, with a hearing scheduled for Monday.

The funding halt caused widespread disruptions, shutting down Medicaid portals and Head Start programs.

Trump’s order sought to review agencies’ commitments to DEI and environmental policies.

Attorneys general from 23 states have sued to oppose the freeze.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All he found out was another name to add to the purge list. He's gonna ignore it all and keep going. Even if the SCOTUS tells him they are not going to back him up, they have already given up all enforcement capability with their immunity decision.

The sole (lawful) remedy is impeachment. He can ignore the courts and Congress entirely as long as a majority of the House (or just 34 Senators ) let him.

[–] just_another_person 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Well that's not true at all. Wait until California stops sending funds to DC for constitutional breaches and failures. Can't pick and choose without consequences.

[–] orclev 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would play into his hands. He wants to fuck up the federal government and blocking a significant chunk of tax income would help with that.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He doesn't want to reduce the budget overall, but rather limit spending and direct that money to his rich owners and "friends".

[–] orclev 3 points 1 day ago

He would prefer that, but he'd gladly take anything that damages government organizations. Remember he's the kind of guy that would rather destroy something than let someone else get any benefit out of it. If he doesn't profit from it in some fashion it's a target.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Except it isn't like California writes a check to DC every month. In order for California to stop sending money to DC then every employer with an employee in California would need to stop deducting federal taxes from everyone's paychecks. I don't think our (m/b)illionaire owners are going to allow that to happen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

... consequences.

What world do you live in? Not only has Donald never experienced any real consequences, he has consistently been rewarded.