A federal judge in Rhode Island has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s controversial federal spending freeze, criticizing the move as unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled that the administration’s actions likely violated both the Constitution and U.S. federal law, particularly the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The freeze, which had been outlined in executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, caused confusion and chaos across federal agencies, leading to immediate lawsuits.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo detailing the spending freeze, which quickly paralyzed various entitlement systems and administrative processes. The administration attempted to reverse the policy by issuing a second memo, arguing that the issue was rendered moot. However, Judge McConnell found that the rescission was merely a technical move to evade legal scrutiny, as the substantive effects of the freeze remained intact. He pointed to a post from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, which confirmed that the freeze was still in effect, as well as internal communications from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which continued to implement the original directive.
The judge emphasized that the administration’s attempt to rescind the policy without stopping its effects reflected a lack of genuine reversal. He described the government’s actions as a “shell game” meant to manipulate the court system and avoid a ruling on the freeze’s legality. McConnell ruled that the plaintiffs states challenging the freeze were likely to prevail in their case and issued the restraining order to prevent further implementation of the policy.
Central to the judge’s ruling was the idea that the executive branch does not have unlimited authority to withhold congressionally approved funds. The Trump administration’s freeze, McConnell argued, violated the separation of powers by disregarding Congressional intent and directives. The decision found that Congress had appropriated funds for specific purposes, and the executive branch had no legal basis to stop their disbursement. The freeze, McConnell wrote, was arbitrary and capricious, acting outside the scope of what was constitutionally permissible for the executive branch.
This ruling is the second setback for the Trump administration over the freeze, following a similar decision by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C. On the heels of these judicial rejections, New York State, which is leading the lawsuit, celebrated the court’s decision. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the legal challenge, condemned the administration’s actions as reckless and harmful to essential public services. James highlighted the real-world impact of the freeze, which led to disruptions in services like childcare, Medicaid, and law enforcement.
Judge McConnell’s ruling reflects growing concerns over executive overreach and the need to uphold the constitutional checks and balances between the branches of government. By blocking the freeze, the court has ensured that Congress’s role in appropriating funds is respected, and that the executive branch cannot unilaterally override legislative decisions.
