A high-stakes legal battle unfolds as nonprofit organizations challenge the Trump administration's controversial federal funding freeze.
According to the Washington Examiner, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan extended a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration's sweeping freeze on federal grants, despite the Office of Management and Budget's withdrawal of its directive.
The ruling came after nonprofit organizations and health groups demonstrated that they remained unable to access federal funds, even after the OMB memo was rescinded. Judge AliKhan's decision followed an administrative stay from the previous week and coincided with a similar ruling from a Rhode Island federal court that also blocked the administration's freeze on various federal spending programs.
The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, argued that the funding restrictions stemmed from presidential executive orders rather than the withdrawn OMB memo.
DOJ attorney Daniel Schwei maintained that the remaining funding pauses were lawful and connected to specific presidential directives, including a 90-day pause on certain grants and federal aid to migrants.
Judge AliKhan rejected these arguments, citing evidence from organizations that had no connection to the policies targeted by the administration's funding freeze. Small businesses and scientific research firms provided sworn affidavits demonstrating their inability to access federal funds, putting their operations and employees at risk.
The legal proceedings created confusion in Washington after OMB initially issued a memo halting all spending except Medicare and Social Security. Despite the memo's subsequent withdrawal, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained that the spending freeze remained in effect.
The case highlights a broader constitutional debate regarding presidential control over federal expenditures. Some Trump advisers contest the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limits presidential authority over spending decisions.
The controversy has affected the confirmation process of Trump's OMB nominee, Russ Vought. Senate Democrats boycotted the vote to advance his nomination, expressing concerns about the administration's handling of the funding freeze. Republicans, however, proceeded with the nomination process.
The DOJ signaled its readiness to pursue the case in higher courts, requesting Judge AliKhan to rule on a preliminary injunction instead of a temporary restraining order. This would have allowed the administration to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The legal dispute over Trump's federal aid freeze represents a significant test of executive power and spending authority. Judge AliKhan, addressing the impact on affected organizations, stated:
Organizations that have nothing to do with the executive orders, that do things like install wheelchair ramps or support small businesses, have seen a risk of laying people off and potentially completely collapsing because they're not receiving the funds
The DOJ maintained its position through attorney Schwei, who argued:
Just because funding may be paused, that does not mean that it is attributable to the now-withdrawn OMB memo
The battle over federal funding freezes continues to evolve as the Trump administration faces multiple legal challenges in different jurisdictions. The extended temporary restraining order in Washington, D.C., combined with the Rhode Island federal court's ruling, demonstrates the judiciary's growing involvement in regulating executive authority over federal spending programs. As the case potentially moves toward higher courts, the outcome could significantly impact the relationship between presidential power and congressional spending authority.