A Legal Battle Fueled by Political Agendas
The funding pause originated from a Jan. 27 memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), ordering executive agencies to halt federal aid while the administration reviewed programs for alignment with Trump’s policy goals. Targets of the review? Foreign aid, diversity and inclusion efforts, and what the administration labeled “woke gender ideology” and the Green New Deal.
Facing backlash and mounting legal challenges, the White House rescinded the directive just two days later, claiming it wanted to “end the confusion.” However, government lawyers still fought to preserve the administration’s power to impose future freezes.
At a recent hearing, Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei dismissed concerns as “hypothetical,” arguing that since the memo had been rescinded, further legal action was unnecessary. But Judge AliKhan wasn’t convinced.
A Ruling That Pulls No Punches
Judge AliKhan made it clear: the nonprofits had “easily shown irreparable harm.” Many rely on weekly federal disbursements to survive, and the funding freeze had already forced agencies to shutter payment portals and suspend assistance. The judge rejected the government’s attempt to distance itself from the chaos, stating bluntly that the OMB memo “clearly caused the freeze.”
“In a manner of speaking,” she wrote, “the government is correct that the memo didn’t identify specific funds to be paused. Instead, it simply paused them all.”
The ruling also rejected the argument that the case was moot. With the White House refusing to guarantee that another freeze wouldn’t happen, Judge AliKhan refused to let the administration off the hook. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had even stated that the memo’s withdrawal was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” reinforcing concerns that the move could resurface.
