A federal judge has slammed the Trump administration’s attempt to halt federal financial assistance programs, ruling that the move lacked legal backing and could cause severe harm.
The ruling comes after nonprofit and small business groups sued to stop a White House directive that had ordered federal agencies to temporarily pause spending on grants and loans. The judge emphasized that the injunction was the only safeguard preventing “potentially catastrophic harm.”
The controversy began on January 27, when the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo directing agencies to freeze financial aid while the administration reviewed funding for compliance with Trump’s executive orders. Those orders aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and suspend projects related to climate change.
Though the OMB later withdrew the memo amid legal challenges, critics argued that the administration was still pushing ahead with the funding freeze under a different guise. They pointed to a post on social media by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, which stated that the memo’s withdrawal was not a full reversal of the policy.
The judge cited that post as evidence that the lawsuit was still relevant and issued an order barring the administration from reviving the funding pause in any form. Calling the freeze “ill-conceived from the beginning,” the judge criticized the administration for either attempting to halt up to $3 trillion in federal spending overnight or demanding a complete review of grants and loans within 24 hours—both of which were deemed impractical and legally dubious.
The White House has not responded to the ruling. Meanwhile, attorneys representing the plaintiffs praised the decision, calling it a victory against what they described as a politically motivated attempt to disrupt essential funding.
