Thanks to it home for joining us. This hour, really happy to have you here. So this did not go well for the Trump administration.

This is what it looks like in a court of law when you flounder and lose, and there is a court reporter there to write it all down.

The judge. Right now the court has before it a motion to enforce. I think there are some basic questions that have been posed here.

The restraining order has been effect for now 12 days since February 13th, and there are just some basic questions.

The restraining order was clear, and the court has said it was clear that defendants, meaning the Trump administration,

could not continue the blanket suspension of foreign aid funds pending a review.

That was based on a finding that the plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm.

It sounds like there's evidence right now that that irreparable harm has deepened.

Now, the plaintiffs seem to be saying that the blanket pause by the Trump administration

was not lifted in any meaningful sense.

The judge then says to the lawyer for the Trump administration, quote, I'd like you

to tell me in simple terms, what action you are aware of that the agency has lifted the blanket

pause?

Are you aware of steps that the agencies here have taken

to actually unpause the disbursement of funds? Trump administration lawyer response.

So let me focus on that last point, if I might. The judge. Well, I actually want you to focus on my

question. I do want to hear your full answer,

but has the government begun? Has the government unfrozen disbursements as to those contracts

or assistance agreements for at least that period? Trump administration lawyer. So for the

period before the restraining order, this is going back to the February 18th Joint Status Report.

The plaintiff's characterization of some of those decisions, and there's a wide variety, right, of grants and foreign assistance arrangements contracts, was that all of them were under the same challenged authority.

So there was a process.

...