Summary

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in blocked foreign aid within 48 hours, citing noncompliance with a 13-day-old court order.

The freeze, imposed by Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order, halted funding for USAID and State Department programs, affecting hundreds of millions of dollars owed to nonprofits and businesses.

The cutoff forced tens of thousands of layoffs and jeopardized critical aid projects. Despite the Feb. 13 ruling, no payments resumed.

This follows another case where a judge found the administration failed to unfreeze trillions in domestic grants and loans.

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Whatcha gonna do, judge? Ask again? Wait until deadlines pass? Delay has always been Trumpy Dumpty’s strategy to maximize harm. No conquences means nothing to lose.

    But instead of poking a dictator who doesn’t GAF, how about holding congress Republicans accountable since, you know, they “control” finances. You start dragging them out in cuffs, I betcha it will get someone’s attention, fast!

    • perestroika@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      54 minutes ago

      The ordinary response:

      • find the defendant in contempt
      • send US marshals to carry out the court order
      • alternatively, send them to jail the person who held the court in contempt
    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The next step is the DoJ sends the US Marshalls to arrest the President for failure to comply with a federal court order. Let’s hope they follow through.

      Congress is not withholding the funds, so they are not committing a crime. That’s part of the reason for the accountability executive order, obscuring responsibility.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        The next step is the DoJ sends the US Marshalls to arrest the President

        The DoJ is owned by Trump, so I don’t think they’ll be doing that.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 day ago

        The DoJ is an executive agency, under the President, currently run by Pam Bondi and Emil Bove. Anyone in that organization who moves against the President is getting fired, whether or not that is legal.

        • perestroika@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          52 minutes ago

          This is the interesting bit - he might try that. As far as I know, something changed in 1969 about the structure of the federal marshals, and the courts no longer hire their own marshals. A comment from an American well versed in law would help clear things up.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        Interesting. I suppose it being an executive order does keep it to the executive branch. It’s late over here and the brain hurts.

        Too bad there isn’t a law that requires the legislative brance to exercise powers of checks and balances. Maybe that’s something to note for America 2.0.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The federal courts took the first step, ruling the action unconstitutional. We’ll see if the DoJ dispatches the US Marshalls with a warrant for failure to comply. If not, they will be complicit.

          • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The courts can directly order the Marshalls to enforce their rulings. But yes,the Marshalls do roll up under the DOJ. So what happens when the courts give the order is anyone’s guess.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 hours ago

                  There hasn’t been one yet. It’s defined as a situation in which a major political dispute cannot be clearly resolved on the basis of the particular government’s constitution or established practice. All steps must be taken until our system has been proven to fail.

                  • ubergeek@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    22 minutes ago

                    You mean like when a person who organized an insurrection, and was found not eligible for office, still takes office?