The ruling addresses concerns over legality and potential ramifications of the administration's actions prior to a court hearing.
**US Judge Halts Trump Administration's Freeze on Federal Grants**
**US Judge Halts Trump Administration's Freeze on Federal Grants**
A federal judge intervenes, temporarily blocking Trump's directive to suspend grants and loans nationwide.
In a significant legal development, Judge Loren AliKhan has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s directive to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and loans. This decision, made just minutes before the order was set to take effect, allows for additional evaluation of the implications of such a sweeping freeze which has sparked confusion and led to a lawsuit from various organizations representing grant recipients.
On Tuesday, moments before the freezing order was to be enforced, Judge AliKhan issued a stay that will maintain the status quo until an oral argument on the matter occurs next Monday at 17:00 EST (22:00 GMT). This move was prompted by a lawsuit filed earlier that day, alleging that the White House's suspension of already approved federal funding is a violation of the law.
The White House had clarified that the temporary pause was intended to give the incoming administration the opportunity to evaluate which grants and loans align with its agenda. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the pause as part of a commitment to responsible management of taxpayer funds, notably aiming to reduce spending on what she referred to as “woke” gender issues and diversity initiatives.
However, opposition to the freeze quickly emerged, with many stakeholders including nonprofits and research organizations expressing their concerns about the abrupt loss of funding. In a post on social media, Diane Yentel, the president of the National Council of Nonprofits and one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, celebrated the court’s ruling, claiming it prevents the "reckless plan to halt federal funding".
The administration's freeze threatens a wide range of federal programs which include critical funding for disaster relief and cancer research. Critics emphasize that the order lacks a legal foundation and could have adverse effects on numerous people and entities dependent on these funds.
Beyond this legal confrontation, a group of Democratic states has also filed a suit against the Trump administration, challenging the constitutionality of the freeze. White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, defended the directive prior to the ruling, insisting it would not affect federally essential programs, despite reports of issues in accessing Medicaid funds in some states.
Top Democrats have responded with strong criticism; Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro described the scope of Trump’s funding freeze as “breathtaking” and likely to yield dire national consequences. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asserted that this move could cause a significant disruption, leading to missed payments for salaries and rent, and expressed fears of potential chaos across the nation.
On Tuesday, moments before the freezing order was to be enforced, Judge AliKhan issued a stay that will maintain the status quo until an oral argument on the matter occurs next Monday at 17:00 EST (22:00 GMT). This move was prompted by a lawsuit filed earlier that day, alleging that the White House's suspension of already approved federal funding is a violation of the law.
The White House had clarified that the temporary pause was intended to give the incoming administration the opportunity to evaluate which grants and loans align with its agenda. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the pause as part of a commitment to responsible management of taxpayer funds, notably aiming to reduce spending on what she referred to as “woke” gender issues and diversity initiatives.
However, opposition to the freeze quickly emerged, with many stakeholders including nonprofits and research organizations expressing their concerns about the abrupt loss of funding. In a post on social media, Diane Yentel, the president of the National Council of Nonprofits and one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, celebrated the court’s ruling, claiming it prevents the "reckless plan to halt federal funding".
The administration's freeze threatens a wide range of federal programs which include critical funding for disaster relief and cancer research. Critics emphasize that the order lacks a legal foundation and could have adverse effects on numerous people and entities dependent on these funds.
Beyond this legal confrontation, a group of Democratic states has also filed a suit against the Trump administration, challenging the constitutionality of the freeze. White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, defended the directive prior to the ruling, insisting it would not affect federally essential programs, despite reports of issues in accessing Medicaid funds in some states.
Top Democrats have responded with strong criticism; Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro described the scope of Trump’s funding freeze as “breathtaking” and likely to yield dire national consequences. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asserted that this move could cause a significant disruption, leading to missed payments for salaries and rent, and expressed fears of potential chaos across the nation.
