Trump administration funding freeze blocked by federal judge
A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration's spending freeze, saying in an order this afternoon that the funding freeze is likely a violation of the Constitution.
"During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants 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," Judge John McConnell Jr. wrote.
"The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive's actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States," he added in the 13-page decision in the lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general.
Earlier this week, McConnell signaled he would issue a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from freezing federal loans and grants, raising concerns the White House would try to enact the same policy described in the now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget.
The administration issued the memo Monday night and gave agencies a 5 p.m. deadline on Wednesday, however, a Washington, D.C., federal judge temporarily blocked it from going through following a lawsuit.
Even after the OMB rescinded the memo on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, claiming, "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented."
The post by Leavitt, and possible attempt to sidestep an injunction, drew mention in McConnell's order, with him writing, "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 or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025."
"The evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name-only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts," the judge added.
McConnell, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, had harsh words for the Trump administration and justified his order -- despite the OMB's change of policy -- based on Leavitt's post.
"Based on the Press Secretary’s unequivocal statement and the continued actions of Executive agencies, the Court finds that the policies in the OMB Directive that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States’ TRO motion are not moot," he said.
The judge warned that the there was "more than monetary harm" at stake with the case.
"As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, 'Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers,'" he wrote.
New York Attorney General Leticia James, one of the 22 attorneys general who filed the suit, hailed the decision.
"The President cannot unilaterally halt congressional spending commitments," she said in a statement Friday evening.
The Trump administration didn't immediately comment on the decision.
