Trump has enemies who want to stop him in his tracks. They’re out for blood.
And President Trump was slapped by a federal judge in a ruling that has all hell breaking loose.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked a funding freeze ordered by the Trump administration on Tuesday, just as the pause on federal assistance was set to begin. US District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order, halting the freeze and ensuring that trillions of dollars in federal assistance would continue to be distributed.
This decision came after a coalition of nonprofit groups, represented by Democracy Forward, filed an appeal challenging the administration’s move.
The freeze was part of a memo issued by acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Matthew Vaeth, which directed agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.”
Vaeth further instructed agency heads to “identify and review all Federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements.”
The lawsuit, filed by nonprofit organizations such as the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and the LGBTQ group SAGE, argued that the funding pause would have serious consequences for grant recipients, many of whom rely on federal funds to support their operations.
The complaint emphasized that these organizations, already working on tight budgets, depend on the continuous flow of federal funds to meet their obligations and serve vulnerable communities.
Judge AliKhan’s ruling ensures that all open grants will continue to be disbursed through February 3, with a hearing scheduled for that Monday to discuss the legality of the OMB’s directive.
The Justice Department, defending the administration’s actions, argued that the nonprofits had not yet demonstrated any immediate harm from the funding pause.
However, Judge AliKhan expressed sympathy toward the plaintiffs’ concerns, noting that the government’s failure to demonstrate the specific impacts of the freeze was partly due to the timing of the administration’s move.
The Trump administration’s funding freeze sparked outrage among Democrats, who accused the White House of undermining federal spending approved by Congress.
They pointed to the brief shutdown of federal benefit portals, including those for Medicaid, as an example of the disruptive effects of the pause. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the move, clarifying that the pause did not apply to assistance programs like Social Security or Medicare.
She also denied any impact on Medicaid payments, stating that “no payments” were “affected” and that online portals would be operational soon.
Leavitt further elaborated on the administration’s rationale, asserting that the freeze was aimed at curbing funding for programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as environmental policies such as the Green New Deal.
She criticized the allocation of taxpayer dollars to woke policies, citing examples like funds for international aid programs and global health initiatives.
Meanwhile, the legal battle continues, with several state attorneys general, including those from California, Illinois, and New York, challenging the constitutionality of the OMB’s directive.
Some have even suggested that the 1974 law limiting presidential power to withhold funds is itself unconstitutional.
In a recent confirmation hearing, Russ Vought, the OMB Director-designate, echoed this sentiment, stating that the Impoundment Control Act limits the president’s authority in a way that he believes is unconstitutional.
Stay tuned to The Federalist Wire.
