The Trump administration has been accused of openly violating a federal court order that barred the enforcement of a controversial spending freeze, according to an emergency motion filed late Friday.
On January 31, a U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that the spending freeze was both unconstitutional and in violation of federal law, which prohibits arbitrary and capricious government actions. Despite this ruling, several states have returned to court, alleging that the administration is simply ignoring the judge’s order.
The emergency motion states that the situation has only worsened since the court’s intervention. The plaintiffs claim federal financial assistance remains suspended, removed, or under review, creating ongoing disruption.
On January 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo implementing a series of executive orders that outlined new spending priorities. The directive led to immediate instability, affecting entitlement programs, disrupting government websites, and causing widespread administrative confusion. Shortly after, the administration rescinded the memo but maintained that the spending freeze itself was still in effect.
The White House press secretary reinforced this position, stating on social media that the retraction of the OMB memo was not a reversal of the funding freeze. Instead, it was framed as an effort to clarify the administration’s stance following the court’s injunction. The executive orders on federal funding, according to this statement, would still be “rigorously implemented.”
The judge, in his restraining order, cited this public statement as evidence of deliberate attempts to circumvent judicial oversight. The order explicitly barred the administration from reissuing, adopting, or implementing the directive under any other name or through any other agency.
Despite this, the plaintiffs argue that there is little indication of compliance. Instead, they claim the administration has continued to deny access to federal funds, causing immediate and irreparable harm. The motion warns of severe consequences for jobs, livelihoods, and social stability, emphasizing the urgency of court intervention.
The administration has reportedly attempted new legal maneuvers to justify the continued freeze, asserting that certain federal funds including those from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act fall outside the scope of the court’s order. The plaintiffs argue this interpretation is inconsistent with both the order’s text and the administration’s earlier statements to the court.
The issue of timing is central to the complaint. The plaintiffs highlight that the spending freeze was implemented in less than 24 hours, yet nearly a week after the court’s order, critical funds remain inaccessible. They contend that while the freeze was executed swiftly, reversing it has been unnecessarily slow.
The motion urges the court to enforce its order by compelling the administration to immediately restore funding until a full hearing on a preliminary injunction can take place. Additionally, it calls for an order requiring the administration to clear any bureaucratic or technical obstacles preventing compliance.
In a separate filing, the plaintiffs have requested a preliminary injunction, which would extend the restraining order’s protections until the case is resolved or an appeals court overturns the ruling. They argue that the administration’s partial restoration of funds only after the court’s intervention proves that the funding freeze remains active and that continued judicial oversight is necessary.
