In a quick retreat on January 29, 2025, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget rescinded its January 27, 2025, memorandum called Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs, M-25-13. The OMB memo that required federal agencies to freeze federal financial assistance until programs were reviewed now has no impact on agencies, departments, programs, or people.

However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed on X, formerly Twitter, on January 29, 2025, that the federal funding freeze was not rescinded but only the OMB memo. If true, then everything written below is still a live issue, and we should all expect more confusion and legal action.

Jump to How a Memo Could Product-Test a Dictatorship

Who Would have been Affected by the Memo?

The OMB memo clearly said the freeze affected every agency, department, or program that receives federal financial assistance.

The OMB memo just as clearly said the freeze did not affect individual Medicare and Social Security benefits. This was not an exception or exclusion, because individual Americans are beneficiaries – not recipients or subrecipients of federal financial assistance as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 2, Section 200.1.

Exclusions From the Freeze

On January 28, 2025, amid mass confusion over access to federal financial assistance, the OMB released a Q&A. Within the second answer, the Q&A said, “any program that provides direct benefits to Americans is explicitly excluded from the pause and exempted from this review process.” The answer continued, “mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP will continue without pause.”

This was a true relief to hundreds of programs, thousands of workers, and millions of Americans.

However, the Q&A also instructed excluded and exempted agencies to “consult with the OMB to unwind these objectionable policies,” meaning policies that disagree with recent presidential actions.

A Stay Temporarily Prevented the Freeze

Also on January 28, 2025, Judge AliKhan, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., issued an administrative stay, halting the freeze until Monday, February 3, 2025, at 5pm ET. Likely, this temporary stay was meant to prevent immediate harm. Judge AliKhan would have likely reviewed the merits of the arguments for and against the freeze after OMB and plaintiff clarification.

On February 3, 2025, Judge AliKhan issued an opinion granting a temporary restraining order that stops the federal government “from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in the OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, D.C. District Court, Civil Action No. 25-239, February 3, 2025, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

Programs Might Have Been Excepted On a Case-by-Case Basis

The OMB memo invited agencies and departments to request exceptions to the freeze. The factors for exception were not clear in the memo or Q&A.

A Review Spreadsheet of More Than 2,000 Programs Fueled Confusion and Fear

After issuing the memo but before releasing the Q&A, the OMB issued a supplemental document called Instructions for Federal Assistance Program Analysis in Support of M-25-13. This review spreadsheet contained 51 pages of over 2,000 programs that receive federal financial assistance and asked each program to answer questions.

No programs appeared to be excluded from the review spreadsheet, which led people to reasonably conclude that the review and freeze applied to every program.

How Would OMB Have reviewed Programs?

Some of the review spreadsheet questions asked for upcoming obligations, statutory requirements, and overseer information. Others asked whether the program complied with or defied President Trump’s actions in office. Questions (paraphrased) included:

• Does this program support or provide services to removable or illegal aliens?
• Is this program a foreign assistance program?
• Does this program provide funding related to the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan?
• Does this program impose an undue burden on domestic energy resources?
• Does this program provide funding for “diversity, inclusion, equity, accessibility” or “environmental justice” programs?
• Does this program promote gender ideology?
• Does this program promote or support abortion?
• Does this program support any activities that must not be supported based on executive orders issued on or after January 20, 2025 (including executive orders released following the dissemination of this spreadsheet)?

Why Would Anyone Have wanted the OMB Memo and Freeze Stopped?

Continuing confusion in the government made it unclear exactly who would have been affected by the freeze, how they’d be affected, or for how long.

If imposed on programs that rely on federal financial assistance, some of the recent presidential actions could have resulted in individual Americans losing benefits they currently had.

And reasonable legal questions arise from recent presidential actions. Most of the questions involve whether President Trump exceeded a president’s constitutional powers. If any presidential action was unconstitutional, then basing a review of programs on that action would also be unconstitutional.

the OMB memo was stopped

The OMB memo could have been stopped in a few ways:

1. The President could have ordered the OMB to rescind the memo;
2. The OMB could have rescinded the memo; or
3. A federal judge could have permanently stayed the freeze, effectively stopping the memo.

Congress, nonprofit organizations, agencies, and the public immediately responded to the OMB memo with public outcry. Some lawsuits were filed against the OMB. As a result, the OMB swiftly rescinded, or stopped, the memo less than 24 hours after the freeze would have taken effect.

Still, it remains unclear whether the funding freeze has stopped. As noted at the beginning of this article, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, formerly Twitter, that the memo was rescinded but the freeze was not. Time will tell whether the review spreadsheet is mandated and the freeze is effective.

How a Memo Could Product-Test a Dictatorship

One way a dictator takes control of a government is to push the boundaries of power until there are none and claim all power for self.

The U.S. Constitution separates governmental powers so that no individual can takeover entire rule of law. Congress is empowered to determine spending. The President is empowered to spend the money to faithfully execute the law.

When an executive office withholds money that Congress has determined to spend through enacted law, it pushes the boundary of presidential power. Presidential actions that would change existing law also push the boundary of presidential power.

To withhold money Congress has determined to spend through enacted law, the OMB memo attempted to use presidential actions that arguably change existing law .

If a president ever wanted to take control of the entire U.S. government, using a vague memo to spark confusion, fear, and immediate response, might be an effective way to test the public’s willingness to hand over control.

We the people gave the Constitution its power, and we the people must demand the Constitution be upheld at every turn. Contact your congressional representatives and senators. Let them know you expect the government to respect and uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers.