In Washington, demonstrators gathered near the White House on January 28 to protest a halt on federal funding initiated by President Trump, which had resulted in a freeze on federal grants and loans.
A federal judge in Rhode Island recently held a hearing to discuss whether to continue preventing the Trump administration from pausing trillions of dollars in federal grants and expenditures. This hearing is the latest in a lawsuit led by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, who assert that the funding freeze is illegal and could have severe nationwide repercussions. The White House maintains that the pause is crucial to ensuring federal spending is in line with President Trump’s priorities.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. previously blocked the funding freeze with a temporary restraining order last month. Following this, McConnell determined that the Trump administration had not adhered to the court order, as examples were presented of federal funds still being delayed. On Friday, McConnell decided to keep the temporary restraining order active, while aiming for a final decision on the case within a week.
Challenges to the administration’s efforts in restructuring federal spending and its workforce have resulted in several legal disputes, some leading to temporary funding restoration orders. The Rhode Island case, among others, highlights a significant legal battle as the White House attempts to navigate around such orders.
The hearing addressed numerous programs impacted by the spending freeze, affecting sectors like healthcare, childcare, food assistance, and education, all of which rely on federal funds. A similar case is progressing in Washington, D.C., involving a group of nonprofits.
The plaintiff’s arguments focused on the disorder caused by the spending freeze, initially communicated through a memo from the Office of Management and Budget. Although that memo was later retracted, the review of spending persists. Sarah Rice from the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office cited California’s anticipated $200 million for Medicaid as an example of disruption caused by delayed funding.
Rabia Muqaddam from the New York State Attorney General’s office argued that withholding congressionally approved funds breaches constitutional separation of powers. Conversely, Daniel Schwei, representing the Trump administration, defended the freeze, asserting it fell within presidential rights, and that the Office of Management and Budget had instructed federal agencies not to delay legally required funds.
Judge McConnell challenged Schwei on the president’s authority to issue such a blanket funding freeze. Schwei responded that agencies should comply with the law, pausing funds only if granted that discretion by law. Despite McConnell’s pushback, Schwei insisted that the administration’s intentions were mischaracterized and argued that plaintiffs should pinpoint specific funding pauses deemed unlawful rather than broadly claim illegal actions.
