Trump’s Latest Move Is More Dangerous Than You Think
- Leave a Comment
- James M
- January 29, 2025

A significant controversy that has thrown government programs into disarray is the federal aid freeze that began Donald Trump’s second term. Vulnerable Americans were left wondering about their support when vital programs like Meals on Wheels and low-income housing aid were abruptly discontinued.
Legislators, state governments, and charitable organizations were confused by the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) broad order, which sought to halt all federal financial aid. Concerns about executive overreach and the boundaries of presidential power have grown as a result of this sudden action.
There was immediate opposition to the freeze, which was meant to examine expenditure and realign it with Trump’s policy agenda. Since Congress, not the president, is given the responsibility to distribute federal funds by the U.S. Constitution, critics contend that it is an obvious attempt to circumvent Congress’s power of the purse.
The decision, according to Trump’s supporters, is a vital step to stop funding “wasteful and politically motivated programs,” especially those that deal with diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. However, the directive’s ambiguity put important programs, like Medicaid, in a state of temporary uncertainty, which increased skepticism about the administration’s goals.
Their story is one of resilience, determination, and an unwavering commitment to greatness that transcends generations. As we delve into the storied journey of the Lakers, we unravel the threads of their legacy, woven with the sweat and sacrifice of basketball icons, and discover how they have etched their name into the tapestry of sporting lore.
Join us as we embark on a captivating exploration of the Lakers’ enduring quest for excellence—a journey that has defined the very essence of basketball brilliance for decades.
Beyond the current issue, Trump’s funding suspension is a concerning indication of his larger plan to increase presidential authority beyond what is allowed by the constitution.
Actions to remove government watchdogs without congressional approval, revoke birthright citizenship, and fire independent prosecutors have already been taken during his second term. These measures have the potential to alter the boundaries of executive authority and jeopardize the foundation of American democracy if they are not checked.

A Presidency Based on Grasping Power
Executive overreach has been a defining feature of Donald Trump’s presidency for a long time, and this is continuing in his second term. Trump has acted aggressively to expand his presidential authority since taking office again, frequently ignoring constitutional and legal restrictions.
His recent decision to freeze government help is only the most recent in a string of audacious actions that call into question the legitimacy of the legal system and Congress. Trump is once again straining the bounds of his power and testing the limits of the executive branch by trying to overturn established laws.
Trump’s recent dismissal of prosecutors involved in investigations of his previous legal issues is among the most concerning instances of his administrative overreach.
There are worries that Trump is using the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a political tool rather than an impartial judicial body because these prosecutors, who were protected by civil service laws, were fired without following the proper procedures.
This action further undermines the separation of powers and is reminiscent of his first-term attempts to persuade the DOJ to serve as his personal legal defense team.
Additionally, Trump has resurrected his contentious campaign to abolish birthright citizenship, which is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. He maintains that he has the authority to unilaterally change immigration law, circumventing Congress in the process, despite obvious constitutional protections.
His continued disrespect for federal monitoring is also evident in his recent purge of government watchdogs, which he carried out without according to the constitutionally mandated notification protocols. These acts imply that Trump does not see legal restrictions as essential democratic protections, but rather as impediments to be disregarded.
The dangerous idea that if Trump thinks something is lawful, it must be is at the heart of his governing mentality. This kind of thinking implies that executive authority is unconstrained by current legislation or judicial interpretation, which directly contradicts the constitutional restrictions placed on the presidency.
If unchecked, this strategy has the potential to drastically alter the balance of power in the US government, eroding the judiciary and Congress while increasing presidential authority in previously unheard-of ways.
This is Judge Loren AliKhan. She just blocked Donald Trump's unconstitutional attempt to freeze federal funding, including Medicaid.
— Protect Kamala Harris ✊ (@DisavowTrump20) January 28, 2025
RETWEET to thank Judge AliKhan for standing up for our democracy! pic.twitter.com/58LWAGCagL
A Direct Attack on the Authority of Congress
Only the legislative branch has the right to approve and distribute government spending, as the U.S. Constitution expressly gives Congress the power of the purse. However, that authority is directly challenged by Donald Trump’s recent federal aid freeze, which unilaterally stops funds that Congress has already approved.
In addition to changing budget objectives, Trump is threatening the constitutional separation of powers by trying to overrule congressional spending decisions. A crucial legal point is brought up by this action: is it possible for a president to disregard Congress and choose which projects get funded on his own?
Like his adviser Stephen Miller, Trump has defended the spending cap by claiming that government bureaucrats were squandering money on programs they considered “wicked” or superfluous. However, government expenditure is constrained by laws established by Congress and is not determined by presidential preferences.
Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tasked with monitoring federal expenditures, it lacks the authority to stop or reroute funding at will just because the president disagrees with a particular policy. Any future president may disregard congressional budgets at will if Trump’s freeze is upheld, creating a risky precedent.
In addition to its immediate effects, this spending embargo is a sign of a larger effort to increase executive power at the price of parliamentary power. From removing watchdog officials who oversee government agencies to adopting executive orders to try to change immigration laws, Trump has already demonstrated a pattern of avoiding Congress.
Trump is purposefully eliminating a basic check on executive power by claiming that only he has the authority to decide how and when funds are spent. This is about whether Congress may blatantly disregard its constitutional powers, not merely about spending policy.
Where does Trump’s power end if he can overrule Congress on government spending? To stop this kind of executive overreach, the Founding Fathers built the system with checks and balances.
The executive branch essentially gains power over the country’s finances when a president is given the authority to unilaterally freeze or reroute payments, completely ignoring the legislative branch. The core tenets of American democracy are at stake in this conflict, not simply the budget.
🚨BREAKING: Here’s why there’s a freeze on grants and federal loans!
— Mad Starr (@PatriotInSF) January 28, 2025
JUST Stopped:
- 50 million in funding in “Condoms for Gaza”
- 37 million about to be transferred to the WHO
No wonder the Dems are squealing… they’re being exposed.
Trump, leadership matters🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/OXUaTnpLey
Pushing the boundaries of presidential power until someone stops him has been Donald Trump’s straightforward but successful strategy for a long time. Knowing that few institutions are willing or able to resist, he continues to stretch the boundaries of the constitution, as evidenced by his recent federal aid freeze.
Trump is once again undermining the rule of law and making the system respond by trying to unilaterally restrict federal spending without consulting Congress. He has been able to consolidate additional executive authority with little opposition, though, as evidenced by the failure of checks and balances throughout his presidency.
Congress, one of the strongest checks on executive overreach, is not likely to take any action. Since Republicans are in charge, lawmakers have not been interested in limiting Trump’s influence because many are afraid of political retribution from his supporters.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court, meanwhile, might make it easier for Trump to exercise unbridled executive authority. Recent decisions by the court regarding presidential immunity and other matters raise the possibility that it will broaden the executive branch’s jurisdiction, giving Trump even more confidence to rule by decree rather than by law.
The impeachment procedure, another possible check, has already failed. Despite numerous impeachments, the GOP-controlled Senate declined to convict Trump during his first term, indicating that partisanship takes precedence over constitutional obligations.
Impeachment is unlikely to be a significant outcome if Trump continues to engage in ever more flagrant abuses of authority. Knowing that Congress won’t oppose him, the courts could give him more power, and impeachment is a political dead end, this lack of accountability simply motivates him to push the envelope even farther.
In addition, Trump is taking a long-term approach by supposing that it will take months or possibly years to settle any legal challenges to his acts. His initiatives will have taken effect by the time the judges step in, changing the nation to fit his vision.
He may alter federal agencies, defund programs he disapproves of, and amass authority without any real supervision thanks to his tactic of governing by executive fiat rather than through the legislative process. What will stop him from making even more audacious moves in the future if no one stops him now?

Trump’s federal assistance freeze controversy is about much more than just one policy; it’s a turning point for American democracy’s destiny. Fundamentally, this problem begs the question: Can the president rule by fiat, or does he have limits?
The presidency ceases to be a constitutional office and turns into an unbridled source of power if Trump is able to disregard Congress, disregard the law, and remove government personnel whenever he pleases. This battle is about whether the separation of powers still holds true in the US, not just about government financing.
Trump’s recent behavior indicates that he thinks there should be no significant limitations on executive power. His attempts to revoke birthright citizenship and dismiss independent prosecutors demonstrate a larger record of disregarding the law, while his federal funding freeze directly threatens Congress’s constitutional power.
Trump has the potential to transform the presidency into something much more akin to an authoritarian executive branch, where rules are only important if the president decides to follow them, if these power grabs continue unchecked.
History demonstrates that leaders seldom relinquish unbridled power once they get it. The pattern is evident in both historical autocratic regimes and contemporary democratic backsliding: leaders who weaken the rule of law and marginalize opposition frequently aim to increase their power.
The legality of Trump’s funding freeze will soon be decided by the courts, but even if they reject it, it is extremely alarming that Trump ever tried it. His use of executive order rather than consultation with Congress creates a risky precedent that may erode democratic values for years to come.
The American people, not courts or legislators, ultimately make the most crucial decisions. Will the public tolerate a system in which the president has unchecked authority over federal funds, may disregard Congress, and can overturn laws?
Or do they still think that everyone is subject to the law, including the president? The answer to that question will impact not only how this crisis turns out, but also how American democracy develops in the future.
Conclusion:
More than a simple administrative error, Trump’s decision to freeze government aid is an indication of his larger plan to increase executive power at the expense of the courts, Congress, and democratic institutions.
Trump is steadily undermining the checks and balances that are supposed to restrain presidential power by trying to override congressional funding, dismiss independent prosecutors, and dismantle agency watchdogs. The core tenets of American democracy will suffer irreparable harm if this trend persists.
The rule of law is directly threatened by unbridled power grabs such as these. Trump will redefine the presidency beyond what the Constitution permits if he is successful in disobeying Congress, evading the law, and making decisions by fiat.
Democracies deteriorate progressively as leaders push boundaries without repercussions, as history has demonstrated. Trump is encouraged to do more every time he breaks the law and gets away with it.
Now, the issue is not simply one funding freeze; it’s also whether or not Americans would tolerate a leader who feels above the law. This is a crucial time because if we let this attack on democracy go on, it might soon be impossible to stop. The American people must demand accountability before it’s too late, regardless of the courts’ decisions regarding the legitimacy of Trump’s acts.