Judge temporarily blocks Trump policy that aimed at freezing federal grant funding
WASHINGTON – A federal judge temporarily blocked a Trump administration policy Tuesday that aimed to review grants and loans to ensure they complied with his priorities, which lawmakers and legal experts blasted as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit challenging the policy announced in President Donald Trump's second week back in office hit the docket less than 24 hours after news of the policy became public.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ordered the Trump administration not to halt grant funding until at least Feb. 3, when another hearing will be held on the dispute.
The judge said her temporary ruling was intended to "maintain the status quo." It does not block the Trump administration from freezing funding to new programs, or require it to restart funding that has already ended.
A coalition of advocacy groups represented by Democracy Forward – the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, the Main Street Alliance and SAGE advocates for LGBTQ+ – asked the court to block the policy to avoid “catastrophic” harm to people in various aspects of their lives.
Diane Yentel, CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, cheered the judge's order but cautioned the funding halt is temporary.
"We have a lot more work to do in the courts, through Congress and in other ways to ensure that this reckless action, or attempted action, by the OMB can't move forward in the long term."
Jessica Morton, a lawyer for the groups, had said the freeze on funding would "create unequivocal, imminent and serious harm."
But Daniel Schwei, a Justice Department lawyer representing the Trump administration, said many of the nonprofits that sued do not directly receive federal grants, and that they had not shown that a pause would cause them irreparable harm.
A group of at least six attorneys general from Democratic-led states – New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island – filed a similar lawsuit.
"This policy is reckless, dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional," New York Attorney General Letitia James said at a news conference announcing that lawsuit.
The legal argument in both cases was, essentially, that the Constitution grants Congress the power to determine spending, not the president. The Monday memo from President Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget sought to pause spending while officials determined whether recipients of federal grant money were using it in ways that aligned with his priorities.
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act allowed a president to identify funds he wanted to rescind to Congress. But if lawmakers didn't agree within 45 days, the money would be spent. The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the line-item veto, for presidents to cancel parts of legislation rather than entire laws, was unconstitutional.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that the pause wouldn’t cover assistance that goes straight to individuals, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits or food stamps.
“This is not a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs from the Trump administration,” Leavitt said. “However, it is the responsibility of this president and this administration to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
Leavitt said the goal of the memo was to block funding for programs the president opposes such as Diversity, Equality and Inclusion in hiring and the Green New Deal for climate policy. Officials found $37 million that was pending to be sent to the World Health Organization, which Trump ordered the U.S. to withdraw from, and $50 million for condoms for people in Gaza, which Leavitt called “a preposterous waste of government money.”
“President Trump is looking out for you in issuing his pause,” she said.