A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s freeze on federal aid programs, expressing concerns about the potential for “irreparable harm.” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary order on Tuesday, preventing the freeze from taking effect just minutes before it was scheduled to begin. The order will remain in place until February 3 at 5 p.m., effectively halting any suspension of federal funds until then.
Judge AliKhan, appointed by President Joe Biden, explained that there was a risk of irreparable harm to organizations that rely on federal funding. The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN), a large network representing over 30,000 nonprofit organizations across North America, as well as other groups like SAGE, the nation’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to improving the lives of elderly LGBTQ+ individuals.
The lawsuit argued that the funding freeze would have a devastating impact on nonprofits and other organizations that provide essential services to vulnerable populations. According to Jessica Morton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, many of these organizations would lose funding immediately due to their support for causes such as transgender equality, which the Trump administration views unfavorably.
The lawsuit targeted the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees federal financial assistance programs. The plaintiffs specifically named OMB’s Acting Director, Matthew Vaeth, as a defendant. The complaint pointed to a memorandum issued by Vaeth, which called for a temporary pause on federal grant programs, loans, and other financial assistance. The memo included a broad range of programs, including foreign aid, nonprofit organizations, and initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the Green New Deal.
The plaintiffs argued that the memo was issued without legal justification and with minimal notice, making it difficult for organizations to prepare for the sudden disruption in funding. They contended that the freeze would harm hundreds of thousands of grant recipients who rely on federal assistance to carry out their missions, pay employees, and meet operational costs. The complaint also highlighted that some of the funding in question had already been promised to organizations, and the sudden withdrawal of these funds could have dire consequences.
The plaintiffs further argued that the memorandum lacked any explanation of the legal authority behind the freeze and failed to consider the reliance interests of organizations that had already been awarded grants. They also contended that the policy targeted organizations based on their political or ideological stances, potentially infringing on their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs emphasized that while the Trump administration is entitled to advance its priorities, it must do so within the boundaries of the law.
In response to the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, a Justice Department attorney, Daniel Schwei, argued that the plaintiffs were seeking broad relief without identifying specific grant programs that would be affected. He suggested that it would be more appropriate to address the issues in a more orderly fashion, rather than granting relief based on the possibility of harm.
Meanwhile, state attorneys general from 23 states filed a separate lawsuit in Rhode Island, also seeking to halt the freeze. The legal battles surrounding the funding freeze are expected to continue as the temporary order remains in effect until early February.
