On Monday, January 27, 2024, after one week in office, the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum announcing a freeze on potentially trillions of dollars in federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs, effective at 5 PM the following day. Specifically exempted from the freeze were Social Security benefits, Medicare, and grants provided to individuals.
By Tuesday the 28th, it was unclear whether the pause affected only financial assistance related to the executive orders (EOs) signed the previous week, or all current federal financial assistance programs. Given the ambiguity of the announcement, it instantly received criticism from politicians on both sides of the aisle and from those potentially impacted financially. A federal judge immediately halted the funding pause.
The White House responded that the funding pause was designed to prevent the use of federal funds for purposes that might violate any of President Trump’s recent EOs, such as those ending DEI, climate-related initiatives, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal. The response further clarified that the pause would not affect food stamps, small business grants, aid to farmers, Medicaid, and children’s nutrition.
On Wednesday the 29th, the White House issued a memo to federal employees withdrawing its original memo. OMB Acting Director Matthew Vaeth said that the previous memo is “rescinded” (the permanent OMB director nominee Russell Vought had not yet been confirmed by the Senate).
What Was the January 27-29 Episode All About?
Observers of the Trump administration’s OMB behavior are of two minds about this episode: some believe he is simply an impetuous disruptor who speaks before having fully considered the effect of his words; others believe he does anticipate reactions before speaking, and that much of his rhetoric is best understood as an effort to test the waters before proceeding to act further. Both his choice of words and his personal delivery of those words leave it unclear which of these interpretations may be the more correct.
Another analysis is that he may be deliberately laying the groundwork for enlarging the so-called Overton Window, believing that his election was a mandate to reassess the size and spending habits of the US central government. In light of the general confusion over the spending freeze incident, Douglas Holtz-Eakin of American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, attempted to rule out what these events were not:
- Any major administration decision, such as this OMB memo from an acting director, should receive advance guidance on administrative policy. This memo apparently did not.
- The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 allows the president to pause spending for 45 days. This is called a “recission,” requiring a special presidential message to Congress. But this event was not a recission or impoundment.
- A “deferral” process allows temporary suspensions of funds, also requiring a message to Congress, which can then agree or disagree within 45 days. But this event was not a deferral.
Holtz-Eakins contends that the Trump administration was “...picking a fight over the impoundment Control Act, which it believes is unconstitutional...counting on someone suing over the delay of funds, which will allow the courts to determine the constitutionality (or not) of President Trump’s unilateral action.”
This seems one of the more insightful analyses of the events, echoing Salena Zito’s observation of Trump in 2016, when she wrote that we should take Trump “...seriously but not literally...the press often takes him literally but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously but not literally.” What Trump may, in fact, be doing is testing the waters in expanding the Overton Window to determine how far he can acceptably go in modifying the trajectory of US politics—and in this case, federal spending. His risk-taking presidential behavior has already cast him as a unique character in the history books.
The Overton Window
Named for Joseph Overton—vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan—the Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. Politicians can support only policy ideas that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they advocate these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.
The Overton Window can shift and expand over time, even taking strange turns. Consider the example of previously-unthinkable gay marriage—which suddenly and surprisingly became legal everywhere in the US with the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision—which is now considered acceptable and commonplace. Similarly, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution—ratified in response to society’s concern about public drunkenness—prohibited alcohol in the US from 1920-1933, until Prohibition met such public objection and lack of enforcement that repeal was inevitable with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Was Donald Trump attempting to expand the Overton Window with respect to acceptable major reductions of federal spending? It is tempting to conclude that that was the objective, though it’s still unclear whether the original infamous OMB memo was prompted by Trump himself, or by OMB staff who may have inferred that he would endorse and implement the memo once it was announced. At this point, it appears that we may never know the entire backstory of the infamous OMB memo’s issuance and its sudden later withdrawal.
Spending Freeze Incident Enhances Trump’s Reputation for Risk-Taking
In the wake of the January 27-29 incident, observers have commented on Trump’s motives and intentions. The late US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger purportedly spoke out about Trump in July 2018 during the first term:
I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.
It is not documented that he said this of Trump, though it does sound similar to other substantiated Kissinger quotes, as in this from December 2016:
Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven’t seen.
So it is a shocking experience to them that he came into office…. And I believe he has the possibility of going down in history as a very considerable president, because every country now has two things to consider, one, their perception that the previous president or the outgoing president basically withdrew America from international politics, so that they had to make their own assessment of their necessities, and, secondly, that here is a new president who is asking a lot of unfamiliar questions.
And because of the combination of the partial vacuum and the new questions, one could imagine that something remarkable and new emerges out of it. I’m not saying it will. I’m saying it’s an extraordinary opportunity.
And, a day after Trump was sworn in for his second term, John F. Harris, editor-in-chief of center-left Politico news source, wrote that Trump is,
He is the greatest American figure of his era.
He is not a fluke… He is not someone the American public somehow misunderstands…
He is someone with an ability to perceive opportunities that most politicians do not and forge powerful, sustained connections with large swaths of people in ways that no contemporary can match…. In other words: he is a force of history....
Like influential predecessors, his arguments have shifted the terms of debate in ways that echo within both parties—in this case, on issues such as trade, China, and the role of big corporations….
The Country’s Mood
Note that what these commentators convey about Trump is neither enthusiasm nor hatred, as so many do in today’s politically polarized milieu. They are instead commenting on the uniqueness of his political style and ability, as the ultimate political risk-taker. He is now directly confronting in his second term the very issues that divide the nation.
One could add that Trump is more aware of the Overton Window’s significance for electoral success than are most politicians on either side of the aisle. The best explanation for Democrats’ trifecta losses in November’s election may well have been their campaign’s inattention to the Overton Window—to voters’ concerns about the economy, immigration, taxes, crime, and healthcare costs, which they ignored when focusing on abortion, LGBT policies, climate change, and the state of “democracy.”
President Trump’s challenge now will be whether he has the ability to resolve the nation’s conflicts, to unite the country on a new level of understanding and consensus. Whatever else one can say of Donald J. Trump, he surely personifies the Overton Window as it appears to be widening and revealing a glimpse of the nation’s possible future trajectory.
