- A federal judge indefinitely blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze federal funding.
- The Trump administration’s actions were “irrational” and “precipitated a nationwide crisis,” a judge said.
- The funding freeze prompted lawsuits from nonprofits and state attorneys general.
A Washington, DC, federal judge on Tuesday sided with a band of nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and loans.
In her written opinion indefinitely blocking the administration’s move to freeze federal funding, US District Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the freeze “was ill-conceived from the beginning.”
“Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable,” the judge wrote.
She said the Trump administration’s actions were “irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
AliKhan and another federal judge in Rhode Island previously issued a temporary restraining order against the administration’s federal funds freeze after a group of nonprofits and Democratic state attorneys general filed separate lawsuits last month, arguing that the freeze was unlawful.
US District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, who is overseeing the lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia, found earlier this month that the Trump administration was violating his court order by continuing to freeze funding for federal programs.
McConnell had ordered the administration to immediately restore and resume the funding. The White House appealed that order to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals but was denied.
The case in DC was brought by the advocacy groups the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance and SAGE.
At a court hearing last week, Kevin Friedl, an attorney with Democracy Forward who is representing the nonprofits, said that AliKhan’s temporary restraining order has “shown value” even though the administration’s unfreezing of funds “in response to that order has not always been smooth.”
Friedl said the temporary restraining order has had “a real effect” and helped his clients, but added that continued relief remained “necessary.”
Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schwei argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot since President Donald Trump’s budget office had already rescinded the memo ordering the freeze on federal spending.
“Plaintiffs now agree that the funding that they would receive under their grant awards is available to them, and they say that there’s still a need for continued preliminary relief from this court,” Schwei said. “That is an inherently speculative proposition.”
Schwei said that it was “speculative” to assume that the Office of Management and Budget “might reimplement some pause in the future.”
“Certainly we don’t think there’s a need for emergency preliminary relief from this court to enjoin such hypothetical future pauses,” Schwei said.
The Trump administration set off a wave of mass confusion after the Office of Management and Budget dropped a memo on January 27 ordering the temporary freezing of “all federal financial assistance” beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed.
“The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve,” the acting OMB director, Matthew Vaeth, wrote in the memo.
OMB rescinded the memo on January 29.
