A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily stopped a directive from President Donald Trump intended to suspend federal funding while his administration carries out an ideological assessment of progressive initiatives. The ruling came just minutes before the freeze was set to take effect, preventing potential financial turmoil for states, schools, and organizations that depend on federal funding.
U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued an administrative stay in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations that rely on federal grants. The stay, effective until Monday afternoon, allows time for a court hearing to further examine the legality of the funding pause. The White House quickly did not react to the decision, which paves the way for a potential constitutional conflict regarding federal expenditures.
Democrats quickly condemned Trump’s action, labeling it as reckless and unconstitutional. Shortly after the decision, attorneys general from 22 states along with the District of Columbia initiated their own legal action to permanently prevent the funding freeze. New York Attorney General Letitia James described the policy as “illegal and dangerous,” contending that the president does not possess the power to independently stop spending sanctioned by Congress.
The administration defended the funding freeze by referencing Trump’s recent executive orders intended to boost fossil fuel output, eliminate transgender protections, and terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Nevertheless, an ambiguous memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) along with imprecise statements from the White House caused lawmakers and groups to rush in figuring out which programs would be influenced.
“This kind of appeared unexpectedly,” stated David Smith, representative for the Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas. Similar to numerous school districts, they rely on federal funding and were uncertain about their financial security.
Nonprofit organizations, such as Meals on Wheels, voiced worries about possible funding interruptions. “Older adults might feel anxious about the uncertainty of their next meals,” stated Jenny Young, spokesperson for the organization.
Trump’s administration insisted that essential programs such as Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and food stamps would not be affected. However, officials struggled to provide clear assurances on other federally funded services. Medicaid, for instance, was initially left in limbo until the White House later confirmed it was exempt.
Meanwhile, the National Science Foundation postponed grant review panels, and officials in Prichard, Alabama, feared they would lose funding for urgent infrastructure repairs. Even Republican leaders in Louisiana sought clarification to avoid jeopardizing their state’s financial stability.
A leaked 51-page spreadsheet revealed the administration’s review process, requiring agencies to determine whether federally funded programs aligned with Trump’s executive orders. Questions included whether a program promoted gender ideology or supported abortion. Programs flagged as non-compliant faced potential funding cuts.
Trump’s push to reshape federal funding aligns with his broader strategy of exerting greater control over government operations. Unlike his first term, his administration is now taking a more systematic approach, instructing federal employees to report colleagues who continue diversity and inclusion initiatives.
However, experts warn that the approach carries risks. Paul Light, a government expert at New York University, cautioned, “You can’t just hassle, hassle, hassle—you’ve got to deliver.”
With uncertainty still looming, the upcoming court hearing will determine whether the funding freeze remains blocked or proceeds as planned.