A federal judge in Rhode Island appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s attempt to justify a sweeping freeze on federal grants, signaling that he may extend his previous order blocking the measure.
During a hearing in Providence, U.S. District Judge John McConnell challenged the Justice Department’s argument that federal agencies have broad discretion to halt funding in alignment with presidential policies. He questioned whether such a move exceeded the legal authority granted to agencies, asking whether a categorical freeze, rather than case-by-case decisions, violated congressional mandates.
Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei defended the freeze, arguing that if the executive branch has the power to pause funding in individual cases, it could do so across multiple programs. But McConnell, who had already issued a temporary restraining order on January 31, appeared unconvinced.
The dispute stems from the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal grants to 22 states and Washington, D.C., pending a legal review. The affected states argue the freeze jeopardizes critical infrastructure projects, public health initiatives, law enforcement funding, and assistance programs, with billions of dollars hanging in the balance.
Sarah Rice, representing Rhode Island’s Attorney General’s office, warned that the funding pause could have devastating consequences. “These programs are essential, and they all hang in the balance,” she told the court.
The administration initially justified the freeze through a memo from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which was later rescinded after legal challenges. However, state officials argue that despite the memo’s withdrawal, the administration has not lifted the underlying restrictions.
McConnell, expressing frustration over conflicting statements from the White House, questioned the Justice Department’s assertion that there was no longer a government-wide freeze. He pointed to recent remarks from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who stated that the funding halt remained in effect.
A final ruling is expected next week, as legal battles continue over the administration’s broader efforts to slash federal spending and reshape government programs.
