A federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked a Trump administration policy to freeze federal financial assistance to U.S. states. The court’s ruling comes after 22 state attorneys filed a lawsuit, arguing that the spending freeze violated constitutional principles and federal law.
In his 13-page ruling, Judge John McConnell Jr., appointed by President Barack Obama, emphasized that the administration’s attempt to halt funding likely overstepped the executive branch’s authority. He described the evidence as indicating a strong chance that the states would succeed in their constitutional claims.
“The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive’s actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States,” McConnell wrote. He ordered federal agencies to cease any efforts to impede funding unless they were based on legally authorized statutes and regulations.
The legal dispute centers on a memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) earlier this week. The directive ordered federal agencies to halt financial disbursements unless explicitly authorized. The agencies were given a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday to comply, sparking immediate backlash from several state governments.
By midweek, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., temporarily blocked the policy after a lawsuit was filed. In response, the OMB rescinded the memo on Wednesday. However, this action did not satisfy the plaintiffs, who argued that the administration might still attempt to enforce the freeze through other means.
Adding to the controversy, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a statement on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), suggesting that the memo’s rescission was largely procedural. “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” Leavitt wrote. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s Executive Orders on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.”
The statement raised alarms among the states and drew criticism from Judge McConnell, who referenced it in his ruling. “The evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts,” he wrote. The judge further prohibited the administration from reissuing the policy under a different name or through any other agency.
“Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title,” McConnell ordered, citing Leavitt’s post as evidence of an attempt to circumvent the court’s injunction.
The judge emphasized that the case raised concerns beyond financial harm, pointing to broader constitutional issues. “As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, ‘Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers,'” McConnell wrote.
The lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Leticia James, challenged the administration’s authority to unilaterally halt funding without congressional approval. In a statement following the ruling, James called the decision a victory for constitutional governance. “The President cannot unilaterally halt congressional spending commitments,” she said.
Legal experts have noted that the case could set a precedent regarding executive power over federal funding. “This ruling highlights the fundamental principle that budgetary decisions are a congressional prerogative,” said Jonathan Blake, a constitutional law professor.
The Trump administration has not issued an official response to the ruling. However, political analysts predict that the case may escalate to higher courts as both sides prepare for further legal battles.
For now, the temporary restraining order prevents any immediate enforcement of the funding freeze. Judge McConnell’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining checks and balances, ensuring that no branch of government overreaches its authority.
