Demonstrators protest outside the White House in Washington on Jan. 28 against a funding freeze on federal grants and loans after President Trump proposed halting federal funding.
Ben Curtis/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Ben Curtis/AP
A federal judge in Rhode Island reviewed arguments on Friday regarding the potential continuation of a prohibition on the Trump administration from halting trillions of dollars in federal grants and expenditures.
This marks the latest progress in a lawsuit filed by Democratic Attorneys General from 22 states and the District of Columbia, asserting that the freeze is illegal and could have severe ramifications across the country. Conversely, the White House maintains that the pause is essential for reviewing federal funding, to ensure that expenditures align with President Trump’s objectives.
The funding freeze had previously been temporarily halted by U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. last month. Subsequently, two weeks later, Judge McConnell determined that the Trump administration was not adhering to the court’s order, after plaintiffs provided instances of federal funds that remained delayed or unavailable.
On Friday, Judge McConnell decided to maintain the temporary restraining order but expressed his intention to render a final verdict on the case within approximately a week.
This case represents a significant challenge for the administration as it attempts to undertake a substantial reorganization of the federal workforce and government expenditure. The White House has faced numerous legal hurdles in response to this initiative, many resulting in orders to reinstate funding, at least temporarily. Nevertheless, the administration has endeavored to navigate around such orders, as seen in this Rhode Island case and a separate case involving funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The arguments
The discussions on Friday focused on the fate of numerous programs and initiatives concerning various sectors including healthcare, childcare, nutritional assistance, education, and more that are dependent on federal funding. A correspondingly similar lawsuit filed by a coalition of nonprofits is also ongoing in Washington, D.C.
The plaintiffs initiated their argument by recounting the damage and disruption caused by the spending freeze as initially detailed in a memorandum by the Office of Management and Budget. Following an initial backlash and confusion, the White House retracted the memo but later asserted that its review of expenditures would go forward.
During the hearing, Sarah Rice, Deputy Chief from the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office, highlighted California as an example, stating they were anticipating around $200 million for Medicaid on the night of January 27 when the memo was published.
“They did not receive it,” claimed Rice. “They wouldn’t have been able to continue operations past January 28 if that funding had not been reinstated.”
Rice further contended that many states lack the financial means to compensate for lost federal funds, implying that programs heavily reliant on such assistance would face closure if the halt becomes permanent.
The plaintiffs also attempted to counter the extensive nature of the spending freeze, asserting that it was implemented without due consideration and is unconstitutional.
Rabia Muqaddam from the New York State Attorney General’s office argued that withholding congressionally appropriated funds violates the principle of separation of powers.
Daniel Schwei, an attorney representing the Trump administration, contended that the freeze falls within the president’s purview, and indicated that the Office of Management and Budget has underscored in its guidelines that agencies are not permitted to suspend legally mandated funds.
At points, Schwei encountered probing questions from the judge. Early in his argument, Judge McConnell asked him directly, “What is the source of the president’s authority to impose such a comprehensive freeze?”
Schwei replied, “We are not asserting that authority; we are arguing that the agency directives instruct agencies to adhere to the law, yet if the law allows for a pause, then such funding should be halted.”
Judge McConnell countered that the Trump administration did not originally present it this way, which Schwei refuted.
Schwei continued to argue that both parties agree there are legal mechanisms to pause funding. “The question is merely how extensive is that scope versus how broad is the scope of mandatory programs where such a pause would be illegal?” he added.
He asserted that the plaintiffs should have concentrated on identifying specific funding streams where a pause would have been unlawful, instead of launching a broad allegation of illegality.
