Court Ruling and Injunction
A federal judge in Rhode Island has barred the Trump administration from freezing federal assistance. This ruling extends a block initially set weeks ago in a case initiated by 23 states and the District of Columbia, with the injunction remaining in place as the case progresses.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday. It prohibits federal agencies from halting funds awarded to states through grants, contracts, or other financial assistance, a policy stemming from an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo issued in President Trump’s early days in office.
McConnell, appointed by former President Barack Obama, provided his reasoning. “The executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government,” he wrote.
He elaborated on the constitutional balance. “The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate, and sophisticated balance — but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the executive put itself above Congress,” McConnell stated.
The judge addressed the OMB’s actions directly. He noted that the order freezing federal funds government-wide was “without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending,” and determined that the Trump administration failed to cite any statutory or constitutional basis for the pause.
McConnell clarified the court’s role. “The court is not limiting the executive’s discretion or micromanaging the administration of federal funds,” he wrote. “Rather, consistent with the Constitution, statutes, and caselaw, the court is simply holding that the executive’s discretion to impose its own policy preferences on appropriated funds can be exercised only if it is authorized by the congressionally approved appropriations statutes.”
He outlined the freeze’s impact. McConnell stated that it has affected programs like Head Start, other childcare initiatives, and law enforcement and public safety agencies dependent on federal dollars.
State Response and Background
New York Attorney General Letitia James, part of the coalition challenging the freeze, welcomed the decision. She emphasized that Congress holds the power of the purse.
James issued a statement on the ruling. “The Trump administration’s illegal funding freeze jeopardized law enforcement funding, essential health care and childcare services, and other critical programs that millions of Americans rely on,” she said.
McConnell’s involvement in the case began earlier. He issued a temporary order at the end of January directing OMB to maintain federal assistance. His subsequent February order found the Trump administration non-compliant with that directive, drawing criticism from Trump supporters and threats of impeachment from congressional Republicans.
The case originated from an OMB memo in late January. It directed federal agencies to pause grants, loans, and other assistance programs tied to Trump’s executive orders, targeting approximately $3 trillion in federal aid.
The OMB later adjusted its stance. Shortly after issuance, amid confusion over affected funds, OMB retracted the memo, though White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that only the memo was rescinded, not the freeze itself.
The states filed their challenge in late January. They argued that the OMB directive violated federal law and the separation of powers, prompting McConnell’s review.
Judicial Analysis and Broader Context
McConnell offered a critical assessment of the OMB’s actions. He described the pause on federal assistance as “indiscriminate and unpredictable,” rejecting claims that it resulted from independent agency decisions rather than the OMB directive.
He characterized the memo’s intent. “Overall, the OMB directive amounted to a command, not a suggestion, that agency defendants shall execute a categorical, indefinite funding freeze to align funding decisions with the president’s priorities,” the judge wrote.
McConnell pointed to legal requirements. He noted no evidence that Trump adhered to the Impoundment Control Act, which mandates a special message to Congress for withholding appropriated funds—a step Trump did not take.
He detailed the freeze’s scope and effects. McConnell wrote that the Trump administration “abruptly froze” billions of dollars in federal funding for an indefinite period.
The judge questioned the policy’s rationale. “It is difficult to perceive any rationality in this decision — let alone thoughtful consideration of practical consequences — when these funding pauses endanger the states’ ability to provide vital services, including but not limited to public safety, health care, education, childcare, and transportation infrastructure,” he said.
