Another Judge Halts Trump’s Federal Funding Freeze
Another federal judge — this one for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
The order stems from a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and a coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses seeking to block guidance from the Trump administration that effectively pauses all federal funding via agency grants and loans. Their lawsuit argued that such a directive violates the Constitution and federal law — specifically the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.
In her order granting a TRO, District Judge Loren Alikhan wrote that the arguments and evidence submitted by the plaintiffs “paint a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze. Organizations with every conceivable mission — healthcare, scientific research, emergency shelters, and more — were shut out of funding portals or denied critical resources beginning on January 28.”
Trump’s funding freeze originally came as a two-page memo sent by Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and instructed all federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities.”
OMB later rescinded the memo after two lawsuits were filed — including one by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia — challenging the directive, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt caused even more confusion when, on Wednesday, she posted a contradictory statement on X explaining that the funding freeze was still on. “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” she wrote. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.”
Trump’s DOJ tried to have both lawsuits tossed out as moot given that the OMB memo was rescinded, but in both lawsuits the judge pointed to Leavitt’s X post as evidence that the administration was still trying to freeze all federal funding and denied the motion to dismiss in both cases.
“The potential scope of the freeze is as great as $3 trillion and its effects are difficult to fully Grasp,” Alikhan wrote in her order. “Plaintiffs point to news reports detailing far-reaching effects: preschools could not pay their staff; Los Angeles and North Carolina were denied disaster relief aid; and elderly Americans who relied on subsidized programs for food did not know if their next meal would come.”
The order in this lawsuit, and the one filed by the Democratic AGs, ensures that all federal grants and loans will continue as scheduled for the time being — until the plaintiffs in both cases file for a preliminary injunction and the judge makes a decision. But on Monday, the DOJ responded to the court in the Democratic AGs lawsuit arguing that since the plaintiffs “only challenged the OMB memorandum,” the Trump administration doesn’t interpret the judge’s order as preventing “the President or his advisors from communicating with federal agencies or the public about the President’s priorities regarding federal spending.”
Jan. 31
Judge Halts Trump’s Federal Funding Freeze
A federal judge for the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
The order comes after Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration after the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo late Monday evening instructing all federal agencies to pause their grants and loans. The OMB later rescinded the memo completely, causing mass chaos and confusion. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt caused even more confusion when, on Wednesday, she posted a contradictory statement on X explaining that the funding freeze was still on. “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” she wrote. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.”
A court hearing on Wednesday cleared up the confusion as the judge determined that despite the memo’s rescission, the substantive effect of the funding freeze was still in full force, referencing Leavitt’s post, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.
According to the order issued Friday afternoon, the Trump administration “shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.”
The judge also barred the Trump administration from issuing any further directive that emphasizes a federal funding freeze — like Leavitt’s post on X. “Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title,” the order reads.
The order, which ensures that all federal grants and loans will continue as scheduled for the time being, is valid until the plaintiffs file for a preliminary injunction and the judge makes a decision.
In addition to the Democratic attorneys general lawsuit, Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit to block the federal funding freeze.
Jan. 29
Judge Poised to Block Trump’s Federal Funding Freeze
A federal judge for the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island suggested that he would grant a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
But District Court Judge Jack McConnell didn’t grant the full TRO, given a series of confusing updates on the OMB memo, which was released late Monday evening. In response to the memo, Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed one of two lawsuits challenging the OMB directive to freeze federal grants. On Wednesday, hours before the hearing to consider the plaintiffs lawsuit, OMB rescinded the memo completely.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt caused even more chaos and confusion when, on Wednesday, she posted a contradictory statement on X explaining that the funding freeze was still on. “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” she wrote. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.”
Naturally, Leavitt’s explanation caused even more chaos and confusion in an already chaotic and bungled rollout of a mass freeze on all federal grants and loans. “Thanks. This clarifies nothing,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in response to Leavitt. “This is just more confusion and chaos,” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) — who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — responded.
A lawyer for Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice argued that the lawsuit should be moot, since the memo was rescinded. But McConnell didn’t buy that argument, considering Leavitt’s tweet. Instead, he ordered the plaintiffs to file a revised order for a temporary restraining order , to properly ask to halt any freeze on federal funds, rather than just the now-rescinded memo.
McConnell also said that, were the original OMB memo not rescinded, he would have probably granted a temporary restraining order to halt the funding freeze. “I was, and still am, very concerned about the irreparable harm that has been put forth” in the original OMB memo, McConnell said during the hearing.
Update, Jan. 29:
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded a controversial memo ordering a freeze on all agency grants and loans. The updated guidance, released in a memo on Wednesday, rescinds the directives in a previous memo, originally released late Monday evening.
The original two-page memo — sent by Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget — instructed all federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities.” Vaeth’s memo said that this includes financial assistance “for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the
green new deal.” OMB’s original memo was met with swift and harsh criticism, with two lawsuits filed Tuesday challenging its legality. On Wednesday evening, a federal judge temporarily halted the federal grants freeze until Monday.
Update, Jan. 28:
A federal judge temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s directive to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to freeze all federal grants and loans, until a full hearing on Monday.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia also filed a lawsuit against OMB’s order to freeze federal grants. “The Trump Administration is recklessly disregarding the health, wellbeing, and public safety of the people it is supposed to serve,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. “This directive is unprecedented in scope and would be devastating if implemented. Already, it has created chaos and confusion among our residents.”
Original post, Jan. 28
A coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses filed a lawsuit to block the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo instructing a pause on all agency grants and loans.
The motion for a temporary restraining order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday by the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, the Main Street Alliance and SAGE, an advocacy organization for LGBTQ+ elders. The lawsuit argues that OMB’s order to pause federal funding violates the Constitution and federal law — specifically the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act — and it asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order “barring the OMB and all of its officers, employees, and agents from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce” the memo.
In a two-page memo released Monday night, Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, instructed all federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities.” Vaeth’s memo goes on to say this includes financial assistance “for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
News of the memo immediately sent shock waves of anger and confusion throughout Congress. “They say this is only temporary, but no one should believe that,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said in a statement, according to the Washington Post. “Donald Trump must direct his Administration to reverse course immediately and the taxpayers’ money should be distributed to the people. Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law.”
In a letter to Vaeth, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — vice chair on the Senate Committee on Appropriations — and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.) — ranking member on the House Committee on Appropriations — expressed “extreme alarm” about OMB’s memo, claiming that the White House’s actions are an effort to “undermine Congress’s power of the purse,” and have a grave, reverberating effect throughout the country.
The memo and President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders “have sown immense confusion across the country, with some reports indicating that they could immediately halt all federal funding for any grant or loan,” Murray and DeLauro wrote. “This Administration’s actions will have far-reaching consequences for nearly all federal programs and activities, putting the financial security of our families, our national security, and the success of our country at risk.”
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday by Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan legal and public policy research nonprofit, on behalf of the coalition of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the memo “fails to explain the source of OMB’s purported legal authority to gut every grant program in the federal government.” It also alleges that the actions taken by the Trump administration in the OMB memo target grant recipients in a way that violates their First Amendment rights, because it calls to cancel any financial awards “that are in conflict with Administration policies” — like recipients who use their grants to “advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”
“This reckless action by the administration would be catastrophic for nonprofit organizations and the people and communities they serve,” Diane Yentel, Chief Executive of the National Council of Nonprofits — one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit — said in a statement. “From pausing research on cures for childhood cancer to halting housing and food assistance, shuttering domestic violence and homeless shelters, and closing suicide hotlines, the impact of even a short pause in funding could be devastating and cost lives.”