Federal Judge Blocks Trump Federal Spending Freeze after a Day of Chaos

The Washington Post / Tony Romm, Jeff Stein, Jacob Bogage, Emily Davies

16:05 JST, January 29, 2025

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from imposing a sweeping pause on trillions of dollars in federal spending, capping a frenetic day of disruption to government programs that fund schools, provide housing and ensure low-income Americans have access to health care.

The order prevented the new restrictions from taking effect until at least Feb. 3, buying time for a coalition of public health advocates, nonprofits and businesses – represented by the left-leaning group Democracy Forward – to proceed with a case that may test Trump’s claims of expansive power over the nation’s fiscal trajectory.

The decision arrived amid a wave of chaos and confusion in Washington, where few appeared to understand the scope and intention of a White House memo that had directed agencies to “temporarily pause” the disbursement of key federal funds. Even before it could officially take effect at 5 p.m., thousands of government services – many dedicated primarily to Americans’ health, safety and well-being – appeared to be at risk of interruption or shutdown, at least temporarily.

For hours, states reported issues accessing funds under Medicaid, even though the White House later said it wasn’t supposed to be affected by the spending halt. Preschool centers struggled to obtain reimbursements from the federal program known as Head Start, putting some child-care services at financial risk.

A web portal that housing providers use to draw down money for government-voucher and rental-assistance funds stopped working Tuesday, though the cause was not immediately clear. And federal health and education officials similarly said they had to halt work in response to the mixed messages from the White House. That stalled money for some after-school programs, charter schools and the Special Olympics, a spokesperson for the Education Department confirmed.

The uncertainty forced the White House to try to clarify its approach by midday: In a second directive, the Office of Management and Budget said it sought only to bring spending in line with the president’s recent executive orders, including those that clamp down on foreign aid and funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, which Trump has called “radical and wasteful.”

But the conflicting and muddled instructions only exacerbated the sense of unease across the federal bureaucracy, particularly at a time when the White House has actively looked to make it easier to fire government workers – and punish those seen as disobeying Trump’s orders.

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, many Democrats erupted in anger over the administration’s willingness to subvert Congress on matters of federal spending. And outside Washington, state policymakers similarly expressed frustration, leading about two dozen Democratic state attorneys general to file their own lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s spending freeze.

“This is a sigh of relief for millions of people who have been in limbo over the last twenty-four hours as the result of the Trump Administration’s callous attempt to wholesale shutter federal assistance and grant programs that people across this country rely on,” Skye Perryman, the president of Democracy Forward, said in a statement after U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, a Biden appointee, agreed to stay Trump’s directive.

“We are grateful for this administrative stay to allow our clients time to sort through the chaos created by the Trump Administration’s hasty and ill-advised actions and bring more fulsome briefing to the court,” she added.

A spokeswoman for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the court order.

In seeking to institute a freeze, the White House illustrated in the starkest terms to date that Trump would be willing to push the limits of the president’s purview over the budget. The Constitution affords the power of the purse to Congress, but Trump has signaled he could circumvent lawmakers anyway, potentially terminating entire categories of spending that he opposes.

Under a 1974 budget law, the White House can temporarily delay federal funds only if certain procedures are met and conditions followed – not simply because the White House disapproves of its purpose, according to David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School.

But Trump and his incoming budget chief, Russell Vought, have indicated they believe that law is unconstitutional. Instead, they have publicly embraced a controversial power, known as impoundment, that could allow them to reduce or eliminate spending regardless of the amounts enacted by Congress.

Dan Jacobson, who served as the budget office’s general counsel under the Biden administration, said in an interview the pause is “very likely illegal,” adding: “There’s a lot of money that can get swept up under this that couldn’t be paused even if they did follow the law’s framework.”

On Tuesday, congressional Republicans still heralded Trump’s efforts to clamp down on spending, swatting away allegations that he had usurped their legislative powers.

“He’s been using his executive authority, I think, in an appropriate manner,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a “fireside chat” at House Republicans’ retreat in Florida, arguing that Trump won a “mandate.”

But the controversial stance still primed the White House for a constitutional clash over its budgetary authorities, as Democrats argued that Trump risked setting a dangerous precedent carrying significant costs for families and businesses that rely on uninterrupted federal aid. Some party lawmakers on Tuesday even called on the Senate to hold off on confirming Vought to lead OMB, as they look to gather more answers from the administration.

“The scope of what you are ordering is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country,” warned Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut) and Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), the top Democrats on their chambers’ appropriations committees, in a letter to the OMB.

The scramble began a day earlier, after the White House budget office circulated a list of spending programs under scrutiny that seemed to implicate virtually every function of the federal government. The funds it identified for review included a vast array of initiatives that help the poor, potentially arresting funds that provide rental vouchers, nutrition benefits and college aid to low-income Americans.

The administration also pointed to federal programs that inspect meat, poultry and eggs for potential foodborne illnesses, and payments to farmers whose crops are ravaged by natural disasters. And they included a sizable roster of initiatives to protect public health, seemingly aiming to freeze money meant to fight the spread of AIDS, research cancer causes and detection, and prepare for bioterrorism attacks.

“In some ways this is tantamount to a federal government shutdown,” said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning group, speaking before a court blocked the spending freeze. “There’s nothing here to say at 5 p.m. this evening these things will continue, and funding will continue to flow. It’s destructive chaos that will hurt real people.”

As the initial guidance roiled federal agencies, OMB officials soon tried to clarify their approach. In a follow-up message, they stressed the freeze is not supposed to affect services that provide “direct benefits to individuals,” including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, according to a copy of the document obtained by The Washington Post.

The Trump administration also said it has set up a process for agencies to work with the White House on evaluating their funding and already has approved “many programs to continue” operating normally. Otherwise, OMB said some spending could come back online in as quickly as a day, as the White House looked to deflect criticism that it had taken radical action.

“To individuals at home who receive direct assistance from the federal government, you will not be impacted by this federal freeze,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. She later added that the administration is “analyzing the federal government’s spending, which is exactly what the American people elected Donald Trump to do.”