This week is off to a rough start. President Donald Trump's executive orders have triggered a wave of uncertainty and chaos. It appears that day to day and almost hour by hour, new questions are raised about what will be affected by potentially far-reaching policies.
The order pausing all federal loans and grants was rescinded Wednesday by the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, there is still confusion on many fronts. HPR talked to U.S. Rep. Ed Case, who represents the urban areas of Oʻahu, live on Wednesday morning to discuss the latest.
Interview Highlights
On Trump's executive orders and move to suspend federal funding
ED CASE: The president, of course, has signed about 30 executive orders at this point in a lot of different areas, and they're, to be honest, pretty much all confusing in some way, shape or form. So, hey, we always expected that this presidency was going to be a confusing and chaotic presidency, and here we are, we're in this presidency. The order that he issued on Monday was by far the most expansive and the most problematic because what it basically said was that virtually all federal funding was going to be suspended. He called it a suspension, and that just completely disrupted, of course, tens of millions of actual lives out there. So we're not just talking about governments getting money or not. We're not talking about the Hawaiʻi State Government, the City and County of Honolulu, anywhere else. We're talking about actual federal funds that go to bettering people's lives and that people depend on. Yesterday the Medicaid portal, which serves hundreds of thousands of people here in Hawaiʻi, was closed off — wreaking havoc in terms of all of those who can't get the health care anywhere else. Whole aspects of our same kind of government nonprofits that do incredible work in our communities, and that's what with consequence of that executive order was.
Now fundamentally, on that executive order, it's illegal. And the reason it is illegal is very, very straightforward. That money was already appropriated by Congress — passed by Congress. To pass Congress, it was signed into law by a president, and it is the law of this country that it shall be spent. And the president doesn't like that and wants to restrict it, and in the effort to gain total control, of course, of the federal government — wants to not follow that law. This is called impoundment. It's been around for a long time. We have laws even against impoundment itself, which we shouldn't need laws to say you can't break laws — but we do. So this is just a blatant disregard for the law. Other of his executive orders are within his power, so he hasn't broken the law, per se, on all of them. I may disagree with most of them on policy, but he's within his rights — not all of them, but most of them. But this one was just straight out illegal and, of course, a court suspended it immediately — and this morning the president rescinded it. The immediate threat has passed, but obviously this is part of a much broader impact or effort.
On the consequences of a possible federal funding freeze for state government
CASE: We've inventoried pretty much the entirety of the state government, at this point, all of the departments, to understand what the exact consequences were for them. There was confusion all around. This was unnecessary, not to mention illegal. There is a procedure for us to go through if a president disagrees with already appropriated, already legal federal spending. And so one thing that just, make sure that we emphasize here is that as we have a debate about the overall amount and scope and conditions of federal funding, that's fair game. I mean, President Trump obviously came in with the vote of a lot of people that felt that the federal government was in some ways overreaching, spending too much. I think it is high time for us to have a big-picture discussion on those issues myself because I'm very, very concerned about our overall federal debt and deficit, which is crippling right now. But this money is not part of that debate. This money was already appropriated, already lost. So hey, let's have that debate, but let's not break the law along the way.
On Trump's executive order to fire inspectors general in various federal departments
CASE: Fundamentally, when you get really to the bottom of all of this, if you take a look at the president's initial executive orders — probably one of the most concerning to me is the basic firing of the inspectors general in the various departments. This is kind of an arcane part of our federal government that most people don't really focus on. But the inspectors general were and are set up to control and to review independently the actions of our federal departments and agencies for fraud, for abuse, for illegal activities, for just outright negligence. They're our watchdogs. To pick a very perfect example of this close to home, our congressional delegation asked the Department of Defense for an inspector general, DOD inspector general review of Red Hill, and the inspector general did an independent review — came back with a very, very full and very, very honest assessment of what went wrong and why and how we can make sure it doesn't happen again. Now, President Trump fired the DOD inspector general. So this is obviously an effort to eliminate any dissent either within the federal administration and certainly in Congress. So the real question here is, as President Trump pursues an agenda that some parts of it I agree with, some parts of it, I don't — but is there going to be a reasonable check and balance on him?
On Senate hearings for Trump's Cabinet nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard
CASE: I don't have a direct role, of course, in the nominations and confirmations because that's a Senate responsibility. But I obviously have my thoughts. Some of President Trump's nominations would be fine with me if I was a senator. I would feel that that was within his purview and it was reasonable to vote for them, and so I would have voted for them. But two of the most problematic ones, from my perspective, are up this week — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Department of Health and Human Services. There are things I like about Kennedy's approach, for example, trying to get big pharma out of micromanaging and monopolizing drug prices. I absolutely do not agree with his stance on vaccines that's contrary to the predominance of science, and I think he's just taken a contrary position that is scary for Health and Human Services... One that concerns me far more is Ms. Gabbard's nomination as director of national intelligence, essentially our chief intelligence person in this country, and I think that's a direct threat to national security for a number of reasons. I mean prior stated positions that are inconsistent with our national security, basic levels of trust. You're talking about somebody that has possession of our absolute top national secrets that are highly compartmentalized, hardly anybody knows what's going on. And I don't think that she can be trusted with those. I don't think that other countries would trust us with their secrets if she was in charge. I certainly think that there would be widespread morale problems throughout a very competent intelligence community that doesn't need to be dragged through the coals — is doing a good job. And so I hope the Senate rejects that one.
On moving forward with his responsibilities as a representative
CASE: I can spend every waking hour gyrating around what the president does or doesn't do, and of course, I have to know what he's doing and act in my constitutional obligation as a separate, independent and co-equal branch of government. My job is not to say, to do what the president wants or to not do what the president wants. My job is to be a member of Congress and act independently to try to do what I can do with my colleagues for the betterment of the country, to support the president where I can, but to be the loyal opposition where I can't and to act as a check and balance where I have to. And I'm going to do that. And we have a whole range of ongoing issues in Congress, ranging from the normal appropriations process. I'm starting my seventh year on appropriations now. I carry major responsibility, especially, in defense and in the homeland security space. I've got to get through a normal yearly appropriations process. I continue to be very focused on the Indo-Pacific. I continue definitely to be focused on the cost of living here in Hawaiʻi. These are challenges and opportunities also that occur regardless of who's president and so I've got to continue with my regular business and not get thrown off the stride. As part of that, I need to stay in touch back home, and that's one of my major issues, my major goals this week. I'm running six straight community meeting-talk stories in person, talk stories across my district.
For more information about Case's community meetings, click here.
This interview aired on The Conversation on Jan. 29, 2025. The Conversation airs weekdays at 11 a.m. on HPR-1. Tori DeJournett adapted this story for the web.
