A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that halts the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze certain federal funding, citing constitutional concerns and significant fallout for organizations dependent on government assistance. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) overstepped its authority when it paused grants and contracts, disrupting services nationwide. The decision has sparked broader debates about executive authority and the impact of rapid policy changes.
The case centers on an OMB directive issued on January 27, which temporarily stopped funding disbursements to external organizations delivering government services. Advocacy groups, nonprofits, and other organizations affected by the freeze argued that the measure caused immediate harm, including layoffs, financial strain, and disruptions in food, housing, and healthcare programs. Judge AliKhan described the move as a “nationwide panic” that ignored the specifics of individual grants and contracts.
In her 30-page ruling, Judge AliKhan emphasized that Congress, not the executive branch, controls federal spending. She stated, “OMB attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from Congress, the only branch of government entitled to wield it.” The judge also noted that the freeze disproportionately impacted organizations with diverse missions, from scientific research to emergency shelters. These entities reported being locked out of funding portals or denied critical resources shortly after the directive took effect.
The Justice Department, defending the administration’s position, argued that the freeze aligned with President Trump’s priorities and fell within the executive branch's authority. Government attorney Daniel Schwei claimed it was unclear whether funding disruptions stemmed from the OMB directive, the president’s broader executive orders, or independent agency decisions. He asserted that opponents of the freeze must prove causation in each instance, a point Judge AliKhan rejected.
The restraining order follows a flurry of early executive actions by President Trump, including funding pauses for foreign aid, climate initiatives, and programs labeled as “woke” spending. While these measures aim to align federal spending with the administration's goals, critics argue they lack transparency and create confusion. Judge AliKhan’s ruling highlights the constitutional and logistical challenges posed by the administration’s fast-paced policy shifts.
Adding to the confusion, the OMB issued a second memo last week that appeared to rescind the original funding freeze. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified in a social media post that the memo did not lift the broader spending halt but merely addressed the OMB directive. This distinction became a focal point during Monday’s arguments, with Judge AliKhan expressing frustration over the ambiguity. “I can’t cross-examine a tweet,” she remarked.
The ruling has implications for nonprofits, advocacy groups, and state agencies that rely heavily on federal funding. Plaintiffs presented declarations from organizations still unable to access funding as recently as this past weekend. Kevin Friedl, attorney for the challengers, highlighted the widespread impact, stating, “We’ve been inundated with reports of organizations struggling to operate due to these funding freezes.”
Judge AliKhan declined the Justice Department’s request to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, which would have allowed for an expedited appeal. For now, the case remains in her court as the legal battle over the funding freeze continues.
The broader implications of this ruling could shape future debates over executive authority and the balance of power among government branches. Critics of the administration view the case as an example of executive overreach, while supporters argue the president is acting within his mandate to prioritize spending.
As the legal process unfolds, the situation underscores the challenges of implementing sweeping policy changes at a rapid pace. The administration faces mounting lawsuits over other initiatives, including restrictions on asylum claims, expedited deportations, and cuts to taxpayer-funded legal services for undocumented immigrants. These disputes are likely to test the limits of presidential power and the role of federal courts in checking executive actions.
