A new incident unfolding in the United States — President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze a broad range of federal grants and loans — has raised numerous discussions about the executive branch’s power and what it can mean for everyday American lives. While a federal district judge has blocked the order and the Trump administration ultimately rescinded it, the mere attempt to pause federal financial assistance is a significant moment for our country, our political institutions and for those students here at Fordham as well.
The Trump administration had begun implementing the order which would have “temporarily paused all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” This was more than just the government’s freeze on financial aid; it was an order that would have cut off important streams of funding that affect foreign aid, support for non-governmental organizations and initiatives focused on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Federal student loans and Pell grants were not harmed, but many other programs that directly support research, community development and student success would not have been so fortunate.
His plan, framed as an attack on “woke gender ideology” and the Green New Deal, foreshadowed a broader attack on programs long regarded as investments in the future of the nation. Supporters framed the freeze as necessary to prevent unsustainable federal spending and ideological overreach. Critics did warn, however, that even a brief interruption in these government programs might have dangerous consequences and affect Americans who depend on them.
The Trump administration tested long-standing boundaries of executive power with its broad targeting of federal financial assistance. The legal pushback from federal judges highlights the importance of checks and balances in our system of government. However, the attempt to challenge existing law highlights the troubling trend of willingness to use executive power to shift federal priorities in ways that may not align with the needs or will of the general public or that may not comply with federal law.
Such a move has profound implications for the future. If presidential decisions like this are permissible, even if they are only attempted, what guarantee do we have that essential programs won’t be singled out in the future? While Fordham students primarily use federal student loans and Pell grants, which thankfully would have been exempt from the freeze, many of us also rely on other forms of federal support. Federal grant studies, scholarships and education programs are integral to our future academic and professional success. Had the freeze taken hold, it would have signaled a dangerous willingness to put education on hold for political gain. Suzette Camilo, ___ ’28, stated, “If they were to go on with the freeze, it would’ve affected my and my friends’ ability to personally attend Fordham because of the cost of attending the university itself.”
The American people need to remain responsive to how changes in government policy can affect not only what we can do to educate ourselves today, but how we might help develop the long-term sustainability of our nation’s infrastructure, educational and social institutions in the years ahead.
The attempted freeze is a warning of the bigger challenge we need to confront heading forward, which is getting things done while keeping political ideologies in control. Our increased anxieties concerning the sustainability of funding for essential programs are reinforced by the probability of addressing reviews of federal programs. Especially those that provide students the financial help they need. Both immediate and long-term effects may result, affecting higher education and the larger welfare and government systems that millions of Americans depend on. However, the question is, who should be held responsible when the flow of policy change is led more by the preferences of political leaders rather than by the lasting demands and needs of the American people?
The recent attempt by the Trump administration to pause federal grants and loans, despite reassurances that student aid like Pell Grants and direct loans would remain untouched, highlights the uncertainty surrounding federal financial assistance. Education Department official Madison Biedermann on USA News Today stated that the pause “will not impact assistance received directly by individuals.” However, the administration still ordered a review of whether or not these programs “promote gender ideology” or apparently support “illegal aliens.” This suggests that funding may not be immediately paused, but it could face tests that threaten long-term stability.
Only when a federal judge temporarily blocked the funding freeze did the Trump administration pull back its plan of freezing the funds. According to the Associated Press News, the freeze could have affected “potentially trillions of dollars.” This has raised many different constitutional concerns over executive power. This is because of the fact that Congress controls federal spending. Individuals stated that even a temporary pause of federal spending could cause serious harm and violate federal law. They could also harm the individuals who base their lives on government programs.
Even though the freeze remains, the unraveling that led to it raises unsettling concerns about the stability of our federal support systems and the boundaries of executive power. Students, educators and community members need to remain informed and involved during these unstable political times. America as a whole should advocate for a future in which funding decisions are made in the public interest rather than something of power that politicians could use.
Tahiyat Raisa, FCRH’28, is an English Major on the pre-law track from Queens, New York.
