However, critics remain skeptical, asserting that the policy created substantial confusion and inflicted immediate harm, particularly in healthcare, education, and state funding programs.
State-Led Lawsuits and Court Battles
The first legal challenge came from Democracy Forward, which filed suit on behalf of:
- National Council of Nonprofits
- American Public Health Association
- Main Street Alliance
- SAGE
This was followed by a broader lawsuit led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and attorneys general from 21 other states and D.C.
Both lawsuits contend that the spending freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers, which grants Congress—not the president—the authority over federal spending.
Additionally, the advocacy groups asserted First Amendment violations, arguing that the directive unfairly targeted programs related to DEI, gender policies, and climate change initiatives.
Immediate Impact on Federal Programs
Despite the White House’s attempts to clarify the directive on Tuesday, the lawsuit from the states noted ongoing disruptions, including:
- Medicaid reimbursement portals malfunctioning
- Limited access to Head Start and child care development block grants
The states argued that withholding federal funds would cause “immediate and devastating harm”, reinforcing the need for judicial intervention.
Legal Teams and Representation
The 22 states and the District of Columbia pursuing the lawsuit include New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, Connecticut, Colorado, and Arizona.
