Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about Trump losing in court over the funding freeze.

Two different judges have now blocked his policy.

This, of course, is about Trump's directive that came through the Office of Management and Budget

that directed agencies to, quote,

pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance

and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders. People with

a basic understanding of the Constitution

immediately see the issue. Congress controls the purse, not the president. On Tuesday, a U.S.

district judge paused the freeze to allow for full arguments at a later date. But on Friday,

U.S. district judge John J. McConnell slapped the freeze down a bit more

bluntly. The judge said the states seeking to block the funding freeze, quote, are likely to succeed

on the merits of some, if not all, their claims. Going on to say, quote, federal law specifies how the executive should act

if it believes that appropriations are inconsistent with the president's priorities. It must ask

Congress, not act unilaterally. Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the

executive to take? The court imagines there are, but is equally sure that there are many instances

in the executive orders wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous pause of critical funding

that are not. The judge granted an indefinite

temporary restraining order, TRO, prohibiting the executive branch for moving forward with the funding

freeze. It will stay in effect until he rules on a preliminary injunction. The judge explained that measure by saying,

quote, the court must act in these early stages of the litigation under the worst case scenario,

because the breadth and ambiguity of the executive's action makes it impossible to do otherwise.

...