A federal judge in Rhode Island listened to arguments on Friday regarding the potential continuation of a block on the Trump administration’s plan to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and other expenditures. This case is part of a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, which claims that the freeze is illegal and would have a nationwide detrimental impact. The White House has argued that the funding pause is essential to review expenditures and ensure they align with President Trump’s objectives.
Previously, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. intervened by issuing a temporary restraining order against the funding freeze. Two weeks later, he found that the Trump administration was not adhering to the order after plaintiffs demonstrated delays in federal fund disbursements. Judge McConnell stated on Friday that he would maintain the restraining order while aiming to deliver a final ruling within approximately one week.
This legal battle is a critical test for the administration as it attempts to overhaul federal workforce structures and government spending. The White House has encountered legal opposition on multiple fronts, leading to temporary orders to restore funding. Despite these challenges, the administration continues to seek ways to navigate around these legal mandates.
The arguments in the case center on the consequences for numerous programs relying on federal funding, from healthcare and child care to education and food assistance. A lawsuit from nonprofits in Washington, D.C., addresses similar issues. Sarah Rice, deputy chief with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office, cited the example of California, which did not receive expected Medicaid funding due to the memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget. Rice emphasized that a permanent pause could result in program shutdowns, as states might lack the financial resources to cover federal funding gaps.
The plaintiffs have also argued that the funding freeze is unconstitutionally broad and non-discretionary. Rabia Muqaddam from the New York State Attorney General’s office contended that not dispersing congressionally appropriated funds violates the separation of powers. Meanwhile, Daniel Schwei, a Department of Justice attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that the freeze is within presidential authority and that agencies have guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to only pause funds where legally permissible.
During the proceedings, Schwei faced pointed questions from Judge McConnell, who challenged the administration’s initial portrayal of the freeze. Schwei argued that both sides agree on the legality of certain funding pauses, suggesting that plaintiffs should have targeted specific illegal funding pauses rather than broad accusations.
