Federal Judge Will Consider Further Blocking Trump Administration From Freezing Funds

By MICHAEL CASEY Associated Press
A federal judge on Friday will consider a request to further block President Donald Trump ‘s administration from freezing trillions of dollars of grants and loans that fund everything from clean energy programs to bridge repairs to emergency shelters.
U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island, who already approved a temporary restraining order on the funding freeze, is hearing a request for a permanent injunction from nearly two dozen Democrat states. If approved, it would be the first order since the Trump administration announced a sweeping pause on federal aid, stirring up a wave of confusion and anxiety across the United States.
“The confusion caused by the Federal Funding Freeze itself constitutes immediate harm by impeding planning, wasting resources to mitigate potential impacts, and unnecessarily stopping work,” the states wrote. “Without the timely disbursement of this funding, the Plaintiff States will be unable to provide these essential services for residents, pay public employees, satisfy obligations, and carry on the important business of government.”
A second lawsuit over the funding freeze by groups representing thousands of nonprofits and small businesses is being heard by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C. AliKhan is also considering a request to issue a preliminary injunction.
In their court documents in the Rhode Island case, the states listed a litany of programs that are still waiting for federal funds or some clarity on whether the money is going to be delivered.
The funding impacted includes billions of dollars that would fund rooftop solar power in low-income neighborhoods; billions of dollars that subsidize low- and moderate-income households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters; billions of dollars for greenhouse gas reduction programs; and hundreds of millions of dollars for bridge projects, including $220 million in federal grant funding for the replacement of Rhode Island’s Washington Bridge, a critical span that nearly 100,000 vehicles cross each day.
In Washington state, $200 million in wildfire preparedness funding, $145 million for clinical trials on kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and pediatric cancer and more than $102 million for hydrogen fueling and electric vehicle charging stations were among the programs that remained frozen, said Brionna Aho, communications director for Gov. Bob Ferguson.
“We grapple with this issue on a daily basis. Any frozen funds can have a huge impact on a whole range of issues. We are watching this funding very closely, and will keep fighting for it,” Ferguson said in an email to The Associated Press.
Last month, the White House said it would temporarily halt federal funding to ensure that the payments complied with Trump’s orders barring diversity programs. The Republican president wants to increase fossil fuel production, remove protections for transgender people and end diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The administration rescinded the memo outlining its planned funding freeze, but many state governments, universities and nonprofits have argued federal agencies continue to block funding for a range of programs.
Earlier this month, McConnell, who is based in Rhode Island and was nominated by President Barack Obama, ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal spending. Federal money remained tied up even after his Jan. 31 order blocking a planned halt on federal spending, he found.
“These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the (temporary restraining order),” McConnell wrote. “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.”
The government argues its move to freeze funds is legal and says the request for a preliminary injunction is moot since the memo from the Office of Management and Budget has been rescinded. They also argue the states are exaggerating the impact of the freeze.
“Plaintiffs here seek to portray the Executive Branch’s actions in extreme terms, as imposing an indefinite pause on all federal funding,” the administration wrote. “In reality, this case is about something far more modest — the Executive’s ability to instruct agencies to temporarily pause discrete categories of funding, to the extent doing so is consistent with their underlying statutory authorities, to ensure that such funding aligns with a new Administration’s priorities.”