A Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze
On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting the Trump administration’s plan to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans. The order, issued by Judge Loren L. AliKhan, prevents the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from implementing the freeze until at least a February 3rd hearing, though she made it clear this temporary stay is not guaranteed to extend beyond that date.
The OMB’s two-page memo announcing the freeze, issued late Monday, caused widespread confusion and frustration among members of Congress, including Republicans. The ambiguity surrounding which programs were affected raised concerns that the White House was undermining Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Judge AliKhan’s ruling came swiftly, less than 24 hours after the Trump administration’s announcement. The judge ruled that “anything that was due to be paused as of 5 p.m. today to open funding on grants is stayed,” while clarifying that funding impacted by separate executive orders remains unaffected by the temporary stay. Both sides in the case were ordered to submit briefs later in the week.
The administration’s actions sparked immediate legal challenges. Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the organizations that filed a lawsuit against the freeze, emphasized that the legal fight was far from over. She stated that “a lot more work [needs] to be done in the courts…to ensure that this reckless action…can’t move forward in the long term.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to mitigate concerns, claiming the freeze would not affect individual assistance programs such as Social Security, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or welfare benefits. However, she was unable to definitively address the impact on Medicaid, despite a subsequent White House memo asserting its continuation. Contradicting this assertion, Democratic senators reported widespread Medicaid portal outages across all 50 states.
Republican Senator Susan Collins, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, voiced support for reviewing federal spending but criticized the breadth of the OMB’s action. She highlighted the potential negative impact on services and programs, specifically mentioning concerns about the Head Start program being included in the freeze. She urged a more selective approach, reviewing spending department by department to avoid affecting essential services.
The OMB memo itself stated that financial assistance should be aligned with administration priorities, including strengthening national security, combating inflation, boosting American energy and manufacturing, and eliminating “wokeness” in government. A separate OMB memo detailed the programs temporarily affected, including the Department of Agriculture’s tribal food sovereignty program, Head Start, Veterans Affairs suicide prevention grants, LIHEAP (Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program), and numerous sexual assault prevention programs. While a third memo claimed Medicaid would be unaffected, reported system outages painted a different picture.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) publicly decried the situation on social media, stating that the freeze was a “blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed.”
The legal challenges extended beyond the initial lawsuit. Democratic attorneys general from multiple states, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a separate lawsuit arguing that the president overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution. They emphasized that the lawsuit was not about opposing Trump’s agenda but upholding constitutional principles and the rule of law.
Congressional Democrats also weighed in, with House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders sending a letter to Acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, expressing deep concern about the consequences of the funding freeze and challenging its legality. They cited the Constitution’s “power of the purse” clause and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president’s ability to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds.
The ongoing debate highlights the clash between the executive and legislative branches over federal spending authority, with Trump’s nominee for OMB Director, Russ Vought, having previously declared the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional. The Senate is expected to confirm Vought in the coming weeks.
Experts and advocates expressed alarm about the potential impact on various crucial programs. Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, highlighted the memo’s vagueness, creating uncertainty about the fate of funding for vital services such as public schools, community health centers, and veterans’ housing. Jenny Young of Meals on Wheels America emphasized the potential disruption to services for vulnerable seniors.
While some Republican senators, such as John Hoeven and Joni Ernst, expressed limited concern, citing the administration’s right to review spending, others like Senators Collins, Moran, and Murkowski called for more clarity. Senator Tillis expressed skepticism about immediate impacts on disaster relief, while Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator James Risch urged calm and patience while awaiting further information from the administration. The situation remains fluid, pending the outcome of the February 3rd hearing and potential further legal challenges.