A federal judge delivered a substantial blow to the Trump administration on Thursday, issuing a preliminary injunction that blocks a sweeping freeze of billions in federal funding that had thrown essential government programs into chaos. The 45-page ruling from Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island represents a significant check on presidential power and ensures continued funding for programs affecting millions of Americans.

The decision comes after 22 states and the District of Columbia sued President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and numerous federal agency heads over directives issued in Trump’s first days in office that abruptly paused disbursement of congressionally appropriated funds across thousands of federal programs.

“The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government,” wrote Judge McConnell in a sharply worded rebuke of the administration’s actions. “Here, the Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending.”

An Unprecedented Funding Freeze

The legal battle began on January 27 when the OMB issued Memorandum M-25-13, directing federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance.” This sweeping directive affected approximately 2,600 federal programs, including Medicaid, rental assistance, Pell grants, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The directive was accompanied by multiple executive orders targeting specific policy areas, including what the administration described as “terminating the Green New Deal,” pausing funding related to immigration programs, ending “radical and wasteful government DEI programs,” and blocking federal funding for transgender healthcare services.

Within 24 hours, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan had issued a temporary restraining order in response to a separate lawsuit. The OMB then formally rescinded its memorandum, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made it clear the administration’s plans remained unchanged, stating: “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.”

Judge McConnell cited this statement as evidence that the rescission was “in name only” and “may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.”

Constitutional Crisis: “The Executive Has No Other Spending Power”

The court’s ruling represents a stark reminder of the constitutional limits on presidential power, particularly concerning the “power of the purse” that the Constitution explicitly reserves for Congress. Judge McConnell emphasized that “federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them—they have no other spending power.”

The judge’s decision found that the administration’s actions likely violated multiple federal laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was specifically enacted to prevent presidents from unilaterally withholding appropriated funds.

“The ICA permits the Executive to defer or decline the expenditure of appropriated federal funds only under certain limited conditions that are not present here,” the ruling states. The court noted that such deferrals cannot be made based on policy disagreements with Congress, and the Executive must send a “special message” to Congress explaining proposed deferrals—neither of which occurred in this case.

Dr. Sarah Jenkins, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, called the ruling “one of the most significant checks on executive overreach in recent memory.”

“This case gets to the heart of our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Jenkins explained. “The framers deliberately placed the power to appropriate funds with Congress, and this ruling reinforces that fundamental principle against an administration that sought to circumvent it.”

Real-World Consequences: “Critical Services Relied Upon by Millions”

Beyond the constitutional questions, Judge McConnell’s ruling documented extensive evidence of real-world harm caused by the funding freeze, describing “catastrophic consequences” flowing from the administration’s actions.

The court cited dozens of uncontested declarations illustrating how the freeze was impacting nearly all aspects of state operations and inhibiting their ability to provide vital services to residents. These impacts included:

• Head Start providers considering layoffs, service reductions, and even closures due to funding disruptions
• Medicaid funding delays threatening healthcare services for “low-income, elderly, and pregnant individuals, as well as individuals with disabilities”
• Public safety and law enforcement agencies facing funding interruptions for community violence programs and crisis intervention services
• Pauses in emergency management funding that could “lead to increased loss of life and injury” during disasters
• Delays in critical infrastructure projects, including Maryland’s $60 million reimbursement for the Francis Scott Key Bridge cleanup
• Environmental protection efforts being stalled, including monitoring of air toxins and remediation of contaminated sites

“The funding freeze affects critical healthcare provided through federally-funded Medicaid programs, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other health care programs,” the court noted, adding that loss of Medicaid funding would “significantly impede the delivery of basic health care services.”

Maria Rodriguez, executive director of the National Coalition for Public Health, praised the ruling for protecting vulnerable communities. “This decision means that millions of Americans can continue receiving the healthcare, housing assistance, and food security programs they depend on,” Rodriguez said. “The freeze was causing real suffering in communities across the country.”

Targeting Biden-Era Legislation

The court specifically addressed the administration’s attempt to freeze funding from two major pieces of Biden-era legislation: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Judge McConnell found that many programs under these laws included statutory mandates for how funds must be spent, with agencies having little or no discretion to withhold funding. For example, the IRA established a program to subsidize heat pump purchases with language stating the Department of Energy Secretary “shall reserve funds… for each state energy office” based on a formula.

“Congress enacted these statutes and appropriated these funds for legitimate reasons,” the ruling states, “and the Defendants’ categorical freeze, untethered to any statute, regulation, or grant term, frustrates those reasons.”

Environmental advocates have expressed particular concern about the targeting of climate programs. “The administration’s attempt to freeze climate funding was a direct attack on our future,” said Michael Chen, policy director at Climate Action Now. “This ruling ensures that critical investments in clean energy, pollution reduction, and climate resilience can continue moving forward.”

Administration’s Response and Path Forward

The White House has not yet issued an official response to the ruling, but administration officials speaking on background indicated they are considering an appeal to the First Circuit. Judge McConnell explicitly denied the administration’s request to stay the order pending such an appeal.

The injunction requires the administration to provide written notice of the court’s order to all federal departments and agencies, instructing them to release any funds that were paused. It also specifically requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency to file a status report by March 14 regarding compliance with the order.

Legal experts note that the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, potentially setting up a major confrontation over executive power. “This is precisely the type of separation-of-powers dispute that the Supreme Court has traditionally been interested in reviewing,” said former federal prosecutor Rebecca Martinez. “The question is whether the conservative majority will stand by its professed textualism and deference to Congress’s constitutional role.”

In the meantime, state officials expressed relief at the restoration of funding. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who helped lead the coalition of states challenging the freeze, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and for the millions of Americans who rely on these essential programs.”

The Bottom Line

The court’s decision represents more than just a legal victory for the states that brought the lawsuit—it establishes a significant precedent limiting executive authority over spending decisions and reinforces the constitutional separation of powers at a time when many observers have warned of growing presidential overreach.

For millions of Americans who depend on federal programs for healthcare, education, housing assistance, and other essential services, the ruling provides immediate relief from the uncertainty and disruption caused by the funding freeze. However, the administration’s next steps remain unclear, and the legal battle over executive authority will likely continue through the appeals process.

As Judge McConnell wrote in his conclusion: “The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate, and sophisticated balance—but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance.” With this ruling, that balance has been at least temporarily restored.