Confusion over the details of a federal funding interruption continued throughout the week with seemingly no clear answer as to whether or not the pause was still in place.
But on Jan. 31, a federal judge in Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order that blocks the pause. U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell approved the request after hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by 22 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. In the decision, the judge wrote that the White House’s actions likely “violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States.” The restraining order is set to last until the court rules on the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
It all started with a memo issued on Jan. 27 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for the pause of all federal spending, grants and other financial assistance programs. The OMB said the programs would be reviewed to ensure they align with President Trump’s various executive orders.
Assistance programs and activities that the memo named during the review included, “financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
But there was little clarity on which specific programs the memo was referring to. Various reports speculated that the pause would have included Medicaid; transportation funding; small business loans; disaster relief aid; FHA mortgage insurance; as well as other funding for state, local and tribal governments. Assistance programs for individuals — Medicare, Social Security, food assistance through the SNAP program and student loans — were expected to continue without interruption.
Late on Jan. 28, after a day of uncertainty and conflicting reports on the scope of Trump's order, a federal judge in Washington D.C. granted a "brief administrative stay" to block the spending freeze pending further examination by the courts. Judge Loren AliKhan's order expired on Feb. 3, at 5 p.m. EST.
The following afternoon, the White House issued a memo rescinding the OMB order, but a later post on X from the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed a funding freeze was still in place. Leavitt said the purpose of the memo was “To end any confusion created by the court's injunction.”
Intention aside, Leavitt’s comments launched even more chatter about the reality of the pause.
However, Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) confirmed on X that the funding shutdown was still in place.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said in a video he posted on X “This thing ain’t over, we’re going to have to keep battling.”
The initial memo set a Feb. 10 deadline for agencies to submit detailed information on programs, projects or activities included in the pause. There may also be possible exceptions on a case-by-case basis, the memo notes.
The pause faces further potential legal wrinkles. The Spending Clause in the U.S. The Constitution gives Congress the power to fund all kinds of programs. Each year, Congress approves funding for grants, loans and financial assistance programs — that makes those programs legal obligations.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the executive branch to spend funds that Congress approves of. In January 2020, the U.S. The Government Accountability Office said the OMB’s withholding of obligation funds for the Department of Defense for assistance to Ukraine violated the ICA. In the memo, the GAO wrote, “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”