BOSTON — On Friday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against efforts by the Trump administration to freeze federal funding, resulting in a significant development regarding the distribution of grants and loans amounting to trillions of dollars.

Judge John McConnell ruled in favor of nearly twenty states that sought an emergency order to ensure that most federal agencies do not halt their funding initiatives.

Earlier in the week, another judge in Washington had also blocked this plan, but her order is set to expire on Monday unless extended.

McConnell’s ruling explicitly prohibits the government from taking any action to “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate” the funding that has been promised to the states during the duration of the temporary restraining order.

He emphasized the necessity for the court to act during the early stages of this litigation due to the broad and unclear nature of the executive’s orders, making a proactive response essential.

The White House did not immediately offer a response to the ruling, while several states involved in the lawsuit expressed their approval of the judge’s decision.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell remarked that the court’s ruling confirms that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally withdraw federal funding that is vital for communities and economies.

She called the administration’s actions reckless, leading to confusion, but highlighted the ability of attorneys general to contest such moves effectively.

Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha also appreciated that McConnell recognized the potential for substantial harm due to the directive.

He noted that the implementation of the federal funding pause was designed to create fear and disorder, and it succeeded in doing so.

Neronha asserted that these tactics are aimed at exhausting their resources, but each legal win reinforces their commitment to confronting these unjust disruptions with immediate and decisive responses.

In opposition to the order, government representatives argued that there was no justification for what they called “sweeping relief.”

McConnell’s ruling, despite the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) retracting a memo regarding the funding pause, underscored the need for the injunction.

He characterized the economic situation as merely being “in name-only” and maintained that the order was still essential.

The White House press secretary indicated that a freeze on funding remains on the table, aligning with President Trump’s push for a number of executive orders aimed at increasing fossil fuel production and removing protections for various groups.

The original memo issued earlier in the week had alarmed numerous states, educational institutions, and organizations that depend on federal funding.

Administration spokespersons claimed the pause was necessary to ensure that expenditures align with the President’s directives regarding climate change and inclusion efforts. However, this was promptly followed by a brief notice retracting the initial memo.

Shortly thereafter, Trump administration officials stated that key programs directly aiding Americans, such as Medicare and Social Security, would remain unaffected, but the confusion persisted.

Officials maintained that their actions successfully highlighted the necessity for federal agencies to comply with Trump’s executive orders, which prompted states to file for the temporary restraining order.

In their legal arguments, Trump’s Justice Department contended that the federal court did not possess jurisdiction over the issue and that states could not pursue further actions based on an order designed to challenge the OMB memo.

They argued that both Trump and the OMB had the authority to direct agencies to enact the President’s agenda within their legal scopes.

Acting assistant attorney general Brett Shumate stated that the President’s power to instruct subordinate agencies to execute his plans is well-recognized.

McConnell’s ruling favoring the states was anticipated.

During a hearing earlier in the week concerning the states’ initial request, McConnell had expressed sympathy for the claims regarding the potential implications of a federal funding freeze.