The Trump administration is facing legal challenges over its federal spending freeze, with plaintiffs urging a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the policy. A Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge recently placed an administrative stay on the freeze, a measured approach aimed at limiting the policy’s immediate impact. However, in response, the administration argued that rescinding the original memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should be enough to end the case, rendering the lawsuit moot.
The National Council of Nonprofits (NCN), the lead plaintiff, contends that the administration’s move is nothing more than a strategic attempt to bypass judicial review. The rescission, they argue, is a superficial maneuver, as the White House has made it clear that the underlying policy remains in place. A statement from the White House press secretary reinforced this claim, stating that the rescission was not a reversal of the spending freeze but rather a measure to counteract the court’s ruling.
Citing this statement as evidence, the plaintiffs claim the administration is deliberately sidestepping the legal process to avoid scrutiny. The spending freeze, they assert, continues to be implemented despite the administration’s claims. As proof, they highlight ongoing difficulties agencies face in accessing funds. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has continued to halt disbursements and obligations of federal financial assistance, in line with the contested memo.
The argument that the issue is now moot is further undermined by a ruling from a Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge, who also recognized the ongoing enforcement of the freeze. That judge granted preliminary relief, aligning with the plaintiffs’ position that the administration has not meaningfully rescinded the policy.
Despite these concerns, the court in Washington has yet to issue a temporary restraining order, instead allowing a limited pause while parties present their arguments. A decision is expected by February 3, when the judge will determine whether to extend the pause or take stronger action against the freeze.
The Trump administration maintains that the lawsuit no longer has standing, arguing that the withdrawal of the OMB memo renders the case irrelevant. Their legal filing asserts that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated direct harm caused by the memo that would justify judicial intervention. As a result, they claim, the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
However, the plaintiffs strongly refute this, asserting that the rescission of a single memo does not change the reality that the funding freeze remains in effect. They emphasize that their lawsuit is not merely challenging a bureaucratic document but rather the tangible impact of the freeze on federal funding.
In their latest filing, the plaintiffs push back against the administration’s arguments, insisting that judicial oversight is necessary to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally enforcing policies without accountability. They warn that allowing such tactics to succeed would set a dangerous precedent, where administrations could evade judicial scrutiny through technicalities rather than genuine policy reversals.
As the court nears its deadline for a decision, the case highlights broader tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the potential consequences of unchecked executive actions on federal funding and public programs.
