Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🧵Toothless TROs. . . 1/

2/ As I wrote earlier this week:

3/ Full article @FDRLST thefederalist.com/2025/02/17/dem…

4/ Well, well, well, here we have Plaintiffs in case against USAID filing an emergency motion to enforce TRO complaining that Government's status report claims the government is complying with TRO. Why? Well, let's read:

6/ Here's Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

7/ Note Plaintiffs actually cite woman's death caused by greedy NGO who cut off her oxygen as caused by USAID funding. Of course, X readers know truth via @Oilfield_Rando

https://x.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1890020505782202573

@Oilfield_Rando 8/ Government's declaration now also explains why Trump Administration took approach it did with freeze & then reinstate: USAID records are so horrible it is impossible to know where money is going.

@Oilfield_Rando 9/ And now my "I told you so" dance:

@Oilfield_Rando 10/ ...and

11/ Trump Administration then explains that it paused or suspended "consistent with the terms and rights of the specific awards or contracts." And USAID & State Dept (not Musk or DOGE) then reviewed & decided to terminate.

12/ And the Stop Work orders? Yup, those were entered consistent with specific contract and grant terms.

13/ Here's more authority under which Trump terminated contracts:

14/ So, the Declaration stresses, we've only done what you allowed us to do. And if it money owed, Plaintiffs can come and tell us.

15/ Now Plaintiffs (folks supposedly cut off from USAID) are furious. They demand Trump Administration be held in contempt because TRO was unambiguous & said you can't freeze/withhold spending.

16/ But as I've been screaming for last week, what TRO really said was "you can't freeze or cut USAIDs funding, unless you can." And this also points out issue w/ TRO in first place: Plaintiffs never showed imminent harm to them b/c they never showed Trump couldn't cut funding.

17/ Plaintiffs need to show some harm to them--and can't. Judge might be inclined to rule against Trump, but Rhode Island judge tried that move and soon after had to walk back his order, conceding, yes, if you can cancel grant you can, well cancel grant.

18/ This THREADETTE walks you through what happened in Rhode Island with language from orders. And it is now happening again here. . . . in other words. . .

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1890414929577910476

19/19. . . I told you so.