In a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration’s attempt to sidestep a court ruling, a federal judge on Friday permanently blocked the freeze on federal aid, declaring that the White House’s actions were likely illegal. The ruling came after the administration issued a questionable memo intended to circumvent the judge’s earlier decision.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s decision came after the 22 states and Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit challenging the freeze. Earlier in the week, the judge indicated he would grant an immediate injunction, and Friday’s ruling confirmed that action, blocking the federal aid freeze for the foreseeable future.
Previously, a separate judge had temporarily blocked the freeze on federal grants, but that decision was set to expire on Monday. McConnell’s ruling extends the freeze until he can fully evaluate the states’ request for a longer injunction, which has not yet been filed.
In his ruling, McConnell pointed out the broad and ambiguous nature of the Trump administration’s freeze, noting that while some aspects of the executive orders may be legally permissible, many others clearly were not.
“Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take? The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous ‘pause’ of critical funding that are not,” McConnell wrote.
The controversy began with a memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) late Monday night, directing federal agencies to halt the disbursement of grants. The memo claimed that the administration needed to review the spending to ensure it aligned with President Trump’s agenda. However, the memo sparked confusion and legal challenges almost immediately. The White House later withdrew the memo, but McConnell saw through the move, dismissing the rescission as a tactic to avoid judicial scrutiny. He pointed to comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who made it clear that while the memo was withdrawn, the freeze on funding would remain in place.
McConnell wrote that the memo’s rescission “may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on.” In other words, the White House attempted to sidestep the ruling by withdrawing the memo in name only, but the freeze on funding remained a significant issue.
The judge’s order blocks the Trump administration from enforcing the OMB’s directive or cutting off federal funding to the states. The ruling will remain in effect until McConnell can address the states’ request for a longer injunction.
This case, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, is one of two major legal challenges to the federal aid freeze. A separate lawsuit filed by nonprofits and public health groups in Washington, D.C. has already temporarily halted the freeze, but that hold is set to expire on Monday when another hearing will take place.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the multi-state lawsuit, celebrated the ruling on social media.
“I will keep fighting to protect essential services like childcare services that millions of Americans depend on. The rule of law is not subject to the whims of the president,” James wrote on X.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.