Judge extends block on Trump's 'ill-conceived' federal funding freeze

WASHINGTON (CN) — With harsh words about President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze up to $3 trillion in federal funding to bring all grants and awards in line with his ideological agenda, a federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction against the move.

“In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning,” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan wrote. “Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable.”

The Joe Biden appointee previously [expressed doubt](http://halted the freeze) that the order issued by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget was within the agency’s constitutional authority.

After a group of nonprofits filed suit and AliKhan imposed an administrative stay, the agency rescinded its late January memo directing federal agencies to pause activities that might implicate Trump’s executive orders related to foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI policies, “woke gender ideology” and the Green New Deal.

The judge followed with a temporary restraining order on Feb. 3 to maintain the status quo.

According to the Justice Department, continued relief is unnecessary because the directive is no longer in place.

While AliKhan on Tuesday acknowledged that the facts had changed since she first blocked the funding freeze, she said lifting her order would again bring the nonprofits to “the brink of extinction.”

“Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case,” AliKhan wrote. “Plaintiffs have marshaled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic — and in some circumstances, fatal — to their members.”

AliKhan highlighted White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Jan. 29 post on X, formerly Twitter, which said the rescinded memo was “not a rescission of the federal funding freeze” and the freeze would be “rigorously implemented.”

“By any reading of the press secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture,” AliKhan said. “At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course.”

The nonprofit coalition argued that the funding freeze violated their First Amendment rights, as it would force organizations to “bring themselves in line” with Trump’s ideology.

AliKhan said she could not rule without more evidence, but indicated that the freeze appeared to be unconstitutional since it targeted certain organizations based on their views.

Responding to the Justice Department’s argument that since the Office of Management and Budget told individual agencies to pause funding at their own discretion, the nonprofits should sue the agencies instead, the judge noted that funding pauses came only after the memo — which said the agencies “must temporarily pause” disbursements and that any exceptions required a “clear command” from the office.

The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.

A parallel case in Rhode Island is before U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell, who is considering an injunction requested by 23 state attorneys general also challenging the Office of Management and Budget’s late January funding freeze.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy