Judge Continues Ban on Trump-era Federal Funding Freeze

A federal judge has decided to continue preventing the Trump administration from halting grants and loans that could amount to trillions of dollars, an action that had caused widespread confusion and anxiety across the United States.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, based in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction sought by groups that represent thousands of nonprofits and small businesses. This marks the first legal action following the administration’s announcement of a broad suspension of federal aid.

The judge emphasized that the administration cannot dismiss the disruption and chaos that occurred just two weeks ago as a mere past event without relevance to the current case. “The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction,” Judge AliKhan stated, noting that significant evidence indicated the funding freeze could be economically damaging and, in some cases, fatal for the plaintiffs’ members.

After Judge AliKhan’s initial temporary block, the administration withdrew a memo that had outlined the intended funding freeze. Additionally, a separate judge in Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen states, further preventing any suspension of federal spending.

Previously, the White House declared a temporary halt on federal funding to ensure compliance with President Trump’s agenda. However, government attorneys countered that the court does not possess constitutional authority to obstruct such a funding pause.

Democracy Forward, an advocacy group representing various organizations, argued that the funding freeze infringes upon their First Amendment rights. Initially, some groups reported they could not access federal funding, despite the memo being rescinded. At a recent hearing, plaintiffs’ lawyer Kevin Friedl asserted that the initial restraining order has proven its worth, stating, “Funds have been unfrozen.”

On the other hand, Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei opposed the preliminary injunction, claiming that the suggestion that the administration might attempt to freeze funding again is purely speculative.