Feb. 25 (UPI) — A federal judge on Tuesday continued to block a sweeping freeze on federal funding, a key move of the Trump administration as it reviews government spending to ensure it aligns with his policies.
In issuing the preliminary injunction, District Judge Loren AliKhan criticized the funding freeze as being “ill-conceived.”
“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 24 hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable” AliKhan, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in her order.
“Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
The Office of Management and Budget, an executive office of the president, issued the funding freeze on $3 trillion federal financial assistance, such as grants and loans, on Jan. 27, ordering all federal agencies to ensure all funding is “consistent with the President’s policies.”
The freeze was to take effect by the end of the next business day.
The move was swiftly met with litigation by a coalition of nonprofits, securing a temporary restraining order against implementation of the freeze.
In response, the OMB rescinded the order.
However, the plaintiffs continued with litigation over concerns that the federal government has every intention of attempting to implement the freeze in the future, pointing to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s post on X following the rescission that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”
“By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture,” AliKhan wrote in her Tuesday order. “At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course.”
“Because plaintiff’s members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported ‘rescission’ … ‘it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without … ceasing the challenged conduct,'” AliKhan said, quoting an earlier argument made in the case.
AliKhan continued by stating that the plaintiffs had shown the irreparable harm caused by the order, stating that it led to a nationwide panic and widespread confusion, which prompted many organizations to resort to “desperate measures just to stay operational.”
“The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly and everyone in between in serious jeopardy,” she said. “Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, plaintiffs have more than met their burden here.”
The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance and Sage.
Diane Yentel president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, described the issuance of the preliminary injunction as relief for thousands of nonprofit organizations that were submerged in confusion as to whether they would have to cease operations.
“OMB’s reckless federal funding freeze would cause catastrophic and irreversible harm to nonprofits and the communities and people they serve. This preliminary injunction allows such nonprofits to continue with their important work of providing wildfire mitigation, disaster relief, services to survivors of domestic violence, support for our nation’s veterans and so much more,” Yentel said in a statement.
