Former OMB officials urge court to block Trump spending freeze
The Office of Management and Budget cannot unilaterally freeze Congressional funding to further a president’s agenda, according to an amicus brief filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of a group of more than a dozen former OMB officials who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. These officials, including Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), former Senior Advisor Christine Harada and former Assistant Director of Budget Barry Anderson had collectively served for 235 years at the agency.
On January 27, 2025, OMB directed federal agencies to temporarily freeze nearly $3 trillion of congressionally approved federal funding to further the Trump administration’s policy interests. However, the Constitution grants Congress the power to assign taxpayer money, and OMB does not have the legal authority to unilaterally freeze funding. Following the OMB directive, 22 states, the governor of Kentucky, and the District of Columbia sued the administration, alleging that OMB had violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Though the Trump administration technically rescinded the original memo, the lower court issued an order to prevent the administration from reissuing or otherwise implementing the funding freeze. The former OMB officials’ brief urges the Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s decision granting the states and DC a preliminary injunction that blocks Trump’s spending freeze.
“As a former OMB staffer and now a Member of Congress, I know firsthand that the Office of Management and Budget works for the people. The Trump Admin’s funding freezes are a dangerous constitutional overreach that puts essential services at risk for millions of Americans,” said Representative and former Program Examiner Melanie Stansbury. “I’m proud to be in the fight to ensure the power of the people and Congress’s authority is protected.”
“In my decade of service as the senior career official at OMB, I was instrumental in assisting the incoming Bush and Clinton administrations in implementing their revisions to existing policies,” said former Assistant Director Barry Anderson. “We did so in accordance with the procedures and processes detailed in the Impoundment Control Act and Congress’s constitutional power to assign funding. To ignore the ICA not only is inconsistent with the Constitution and current law, but it also is unnecessary in order to implement presidential priorities and conduct programs in an efficient and effective manner.”
“Freezing trillions in funding without Congress isn’t strong leadership—it’s executive overreach,” said former Senior Advisor Christine Harada. “From my experience at OMB, I know firsthand that our government works best when each branch stays in its lane. If the courts let this overreach slide, it will set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.”
“The Trump administration cannot just ignore the law in order to advance its policy agenda,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “Rather than use legal avenues to implement his policies, as both Republican and Democratic administrations have done for decades, Donald Trump’s OMB has taken unilateral action, which has endangered not just congressional prerogatives, but services that impact regular Americans in their daily lives. The appeals court should affirm the lower court’s ruling and ensure that the funds Congress appropriated can reach the programs people rely on.”