School meals for low -income students. Cancer treatment experiments. Residential assistance to old warriors.

This is among the federal programs that may be-or not-on the cutting block after the White House issued a sweeping note, mysterious, January 27 late at night that temporarily ordered all grants, loans and financial assistance.

Sudden freezing has pushed widespread confusion among government officials in the United States, members of Congress, state agencies and non -profit organizations that depend on federal financing to maintain operations.

“We receive panic calls,” Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate minority, Chuck Schumer, said at a press conference on January 28. “Any organization, school, state, police, office, province, town, or society dependent on federal grant funds to manage its daily operations, and they are all in danger.”

Legal observers saw the financing stop as an opening settlement in a legal battle focused on a concept called “reservation”, and the President of the Authority, Donald Trump, believes that he could be practiced, but critics argue that it is not legal. On its root, the reservation is an executive refusal to spend the money allocated by Congress.

“This is a attempt by Donald Trump to seize power,” Democratic Senator at Connecticut Chris Murphy, who joined Schumer at the press conference. She described it as “an illegal and unconstitutional decision to put the President of the United States and no one is responsible for those who obtain federal funds and not.”

Moments ago, the object stopped at 5 pm on January 28, the American boycott judge, Lauren El Ijhan The procedure is temporarily prevented, Stop it until February 3. However, Eljhan’s rule did not address the legitimacy of the memo and remained unclear types of programs that will be stopped once the deadline has passed.

In her first daily briefing, the White House press secretary Caroline Levit described the freezing as “not a stop of the blanket”, and said that the help that goes directly to people, such as social security, medical care, food stamps, and social care benefits, will not be affected .

However, Levitt did not answer questions about whether Americans can rely on receiving federal funds that pass through an intermediary, such as a non -profit group, state or city.

Here is what we know so far about freezing financing and its law.

What does the memo say?

The January 27 memo directed federal agencies to “stop all activities related to commitment or temporarily disburse all federal financial assistance” so that officials ensure that the programs are consistent with Trump’s policies.

Memorandum isolation programs related External aidDiversity, fairness and inclusion, “The ideology” of sex woke up Financing related to the “new green deal” is awaiting the review. (the “A new green deal” It was a political plan that focused on the environment that some Democrats supported in 2019, but it was never enact. Trump used the term in the past as Catchalle for Green Energy Initiatives.)

The memorandum says that the temporary suspension will give the Trump administration time to review the programs and “determine the best uses” for financing. It gives agencies until February 10 to provide detailed information on any programs, projects or activities that are subject to stopping.

What is the reservation?

The reservation is a legal term indicating the president’s attempt to block or delay spending the money allocated by Congress.

Legal observers say that Trump pushes the envelope of the amount of power that must act unilaterally against the laws approved by Congress and its signature on the law.

As a presidential candidate in 2024, Trump said, “I will use the strength of the long -recognized president to pressure the enlarged federal bureaucracy for huge savings.” This is it It included In the list of 75 Trump’s promises in the second term, we track us itself.

Russell Feon, Trump’s candidate awaiting confirmation as head of the Administration and Budget Office, repeated a wide vision about the presidential reservation authorities in the Senate confirmation session on January 15.

The evaluation authority has a long history, at least to President Thomas Jefferson. Among the subsequent presidents who demanded an independent authority to book the money is Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Some legal experts indicate that the arguments of these presidents have been closed under the 1974 ICA Act, which was approved by Congress “after President Nixon”, Zakari Price, a professor at the University of California, wrote. The law has established a detailed process for what the president could and cannot do when there was a dispute over whether the law will be spent on the law.

If the executive branch wants to completely cancel the spending, the 1974 law says, it must propose “cancellation” or the reduction. Lonzers may consider these proposed cuts under an urgent process, but spending cannot be stopped for more than 45 days while this process is running.

Programs that can be affected

It is still not clear which federal programs will definitely be affected.

A Ministry of Education The spokesperson said in a statement on January 28 that the stopping will not affect direct loans for students and Pell.

Meanwhile, some non -profit organizations said that some of their financing had already been cut.

Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Beginning Association for Starting, told NBC News that some early childhood education programs were unable to reach the funds granted in advance because the system seemed without connection with the Internet.

There were reports that the portal online Medical aidThe low -income health insurance plan was funded by both the federal government and the states in a non -communication mode on January 28; Levitt called it interruption and said in the X publication that the portal “will perform a reserve soon.”

Under the uncertainty about the programs that can be banned from funding due to a temporary pause, the administration and budget office sent a separate document of 51 pages on January 28 and ask the agencies details of more than 2,500 programs that extend.

The document contains 14 questions looking for information about the exchange of program funds. It also includes questions for Trump’s business schedule, including whether programs enhance sexual ideology, diversity, finance, inclusive, or enhance or support abortion.

Is financing a legal stop?

Stephen Smith, a political scientist at Arizona State University, said that Trump’s memorandum fails to adhere to the process in the 1974 law.

Smith said that the law “does not issue any ruling to postpone a comprehensive delay of the type stipulated in the OMB note.” It “stipulates the postponement of” a specific purpose or project “, and not a government level commentary. There is no precedent for the expansion of the OMB or the declared logical basis. Duration.

Keith E Wittington, professor of law at Yale University, agreed. He said: “Regardless of whether the administration is ready to claim that this stopping can be justified through some of the broader presidential force, it appears that it contradicts the legal framework that Congress has set to manage any delay in spending.”

Witigon said that adherence to the law “requires an evaluation of each case separately, and the administration cannot simply refuse to spend money on the assumption that he may eventually be able to reach this legal license.”

Whatever the full range of the memo for federal programs, it ends up, it is clear that the Trump administration wants to put a legal issue in the full measure of the presidential power on spending.

“It seems clear that the current procedure begins around the clock in such a broader battle,” Witigon said.

What next?

The lawsuits were already submitted before they started to stop officially.

The National Council of Non -profit organizations and the American General Health Association filed the first lawsuit on January 28, in an effort to obtain a temporary restriction against the administration and budget office “to preserve the actions of OBB.

Separately, a group of general lawyers about democratic -led states, including New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rod Island and Massachusetts, said they are preparing to prosecute the administration to prevent the memorandum from directing and preserving the flowing money. Shomer announced this step on January 28.

Legal experts say an important precedent against Trump’s position in reservation, in cases such as Kendall against the United States of America, from 1838 and training against New York City of 1975. The United States Supreme Court was also ready to raise a precedent in favorable ways of Trump’s position, as is the case when the decision to abort was abolished ROE V Wade.

Politifact MatThew Crowley, the chief of copying of the Politifact MatThew Crowley, contributed to this report.