A federal judge recently reviewed arguments regarding a request to continue blocking the Trump administration’s suspension of significant grants and loans that support various initiatives, ranging from clean energy projects to emergency shelter funding. U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell, located in Rhode Island, had previously sanctioned a temporary restraining order against the funding freeze. Now, he is contemplating whether to issue a preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of nearly twenty Democratic states. If granted, this decision would mark the first judiciary move since the Trump administration’s announcement of the funding pause, which has led to widespread confusion and unease across the nation.
Judge McConnell stated that he would aim to reach a decision on the injunction within a week. During the hearing, Rhode Island’s Attorney General’s deputy chief, Sarah Rice, expressed concern that after the inauguration, financial resources began to dwindle. She argued that the spending freeze was comprehensive and, in many instances, may contravene the constitutional principle of separation of powers by disrupting appropriations made by Congress. According to Rice, this freeze has severely impacted a variety of initiatives, including support for farmers, educational programs for young children, university research funding, and water safety assessments. Some organizations are reportedly in a precarious position regarding payroll, she claimed.
On behalf of the Trump administration, attorney Daniel Schwei defended the funding freeze as a valid exercise of the executive branch’s authority. He stated that the president was directing agencies to use their discretion to pause funding evaluations in order to reassess how federal funds should be allocated effectively. Schwei argued that the states’ legal claims were overly vague and broad.
The lawsuit filed by the states contends that the funding suspension has led to chaos, causing immediate adverse effects that hinder planning and waste resources aimed at managing its impacts. “Without the timely disbursement of this funding, the Plaintiff States will be unable to provide these essential services for residents, pay public employees, satisfy obligations, and carry on the important business of government,” they asserted in their court filings.
In a separate legal action, another federal judge is addressing a similar lawsuit filed by organizations advocating for thousands of small businesses and nonprofit entities regarding the funding suspension. They too are considering a request for an injunction.
The states highlighted numerous vital programs that are currently awaiting federal assistance or clarification on funding status in their court documentation from Rhode Island. These programs include massive funding aimed at supplying rooftop solar installations in low-income neighborhoods, subsidizing the costs of heat pump water heaters for economically disadvantaged households, and supporting greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Furthermore, they mentioned substantial projects such as the $220 million federal grant dedicated to replacing the Washington Bridge in Rhode Island, which serves nearly 100,000 vehicles each day.
Washington state’s Governor Bob Ferguson noted that numerous critical programs remain unfunded due to the freeze, encompassing $200 million earmarked for wildfire prevention, $145 million for clinical research on various diseases, and over $102 million allocated for electric vehicle infrastructure. “Any frozen funds can have a huge impact on a whole range of issues. We are watching this funding very closely and will keep fighting for it,” Ferguson remarked in correspondence regarding the issue.
Additionally, New York City has filed a lawsuit claiming that the Trump administration wrongfully attempted to retract over $80 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding, which had been designated for assisting in the sheltering of migrants. McConnell has previously ruled that the administration could continue withholding these funds.
In recent announcements, the White House indicated a temporary halt on federal funding to ensure compliance with Trump’s directives aimed at curtailing diversity initiatives, boosting fossil fuel production, eliminating protections for transgender individuals, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Although the administration rescinded the memo intended to implement the funding hiatus, several state entities, universities, and nonprofit organizations contend that federal agencies are still obstructing financing for numerous projects. Earlier, Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal spending, indicating that the allocated funds remained inaccessible even after his January 31 order against the planned halt.
“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell stated in his writings. The government maintains that the funding freeze is legally justified and argues that the states are overstating its impacts, asserting that their request for a preliminary injunction is irrelevant since the original memo was withdrawn. The administration clarified that this legal situation is more about a limited pause on specific funding initiatives rather than a comprehensive freeze.
