A federal judge in Rhode Island has issued a temporary restraining order to halt the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze certain federal payments designated for grants and various programs. This legal ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, is distinct from another lawsuit initiated by advocacy groups that resulted in an earlier decision to block the administration’s funding freeze as outlined in an Office of Management and Budget memo. Although the White House later retracted this memo, it indicated that its evaluation of federal funding would continue.
Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. based his decision on statements from the Trump administration addressing the confusion created by the OMB memo. He referred to a social media post from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, which asserted that the president’s executive orders on federal funding remain effective and will be strictly enforced.
The court’s order prevents any suspension of federal funds to the states involved in the lawsuit, providing a measure of security against potential disruptions to essential services.
In the order, the court declared: “During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a leading figure in the lawsuit, emphasized that the restraining order not only addresses the previously rescinded OMB memo but also targets calls from President Trump to halt federal funding.
“I led a coalition of attorneys general in suing to stop this cruel policy,” James stated. “The President cannot unilaterally halt congressional spending commitments. I will continue to fight against these illegal cuts and protect essential services that New Yorkers and millions of Americans depend on.”
A senior administration official criticized the ruling, characterizing it as a covert assault on the president’s executive powers and labeling it unconstitutional.
