Judge Halts Trump's Spending Freeze
A Federal Judge Halts Trump Administration’s Proposed Spending Freeze

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze federal grants and loans. Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island ruled in a 13-page decision that the administration’s actions violated both the Constitution and U.S. statutes. The judge specifically cited the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, stating that the administration must seek Congressional approval before withholding appropriated funds, rather than acting unilaterally. The administration’s failure to notify Congress rendered its actions illegal, according to the ruling.

The lawsuit, filed by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, challenged a two-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that called for a sweeping freeze on federal grants and loans. This memo, released on a Monday evening, caused widespread confusion due to its lack of clarity regarding the scope and duration of the freeze. While it explicitly excluded Social Security and Medicare, it remained silent on the impact to Medicaid and hundreds of other crucial programs, including those supporting veterans, schools, and food assistance. A separate OMB document subsequently listed thousands of programs affected by the initial memo.

Prior to Judge McConnell’s ruling, District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had already issued a temporary administrative stay on the OMB’s actions in response to a separate lawsuit. The Trump administration then rescinded the OMB memos the following day, shortly before Judge McConnell’s hearing. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s subsequent social media posts clarified that the rescission of the memo did not constitute a lifting of the funding freeze, a fact noted by Judge McConnell in his order. The judge deemed the case not moot due to the administration’s continued actions and the press secretary’s statements indicating the freeze remained in effect.

The Justice Department argued that the case was rendered unnecessary by the rescission of the OMB memo. Judge McConnell disagreed, issuing a temporary restraining order that will remain in effect pending a ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction from the Democratic state attorneys general. He characterized the administration’s justification for the freeze—to align spending with “the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities”—as constitutionally flawed. The judge emphasized that the Executive Branch’s duty is to align spending with Congressional appropriations, not solely presidential priorities, as enshrined in Article 1, Clause 9, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

The judge further highlighted the significant impact the freeze would have had on states, disrupting essential services with less than 24 hours’ notice. He declared the Executive’s refusal to disburse Congressionally approved funds as arbitrary and capricious. The affected states included New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The temporary restraining order prevents the administration from proceeding with the proposed spending freeze until further legal action.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *