Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Push to Reinstate Federal Spending Freeze/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s request to reinstate a freeze on federal grants and loans, marking another legal setback for the White House. The ruling upholds a previous decision that found the administration had failed to comply with a court order to restore funding. The Justice Department argued the freeze was necessary for budget control, but states sued, saying Trump cannot withhold funds approved by Congress.
Court Rejects Trump’s Spending Freeze: Quick Look
- Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Request – The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an effort to reinstate frozen federal grants and loans.
- Legal Setback for Trump – A Rhode Island judge ruled the administration disobeyed a previous court order to restore funding.
- Billions in Grants Affected – Funding for education, environmental programs, and HIV research remained frozen.
- FEMA Funds Also Targeted – The Trump administration tried to block disaster relief funds for New York City migrants.
- Justice Department Pushback – Lawyers claim the executive branch must control federal spending.
- Further Court Battles Ahead – The case now returns to U.S. District Judge John McConnell for further review.
Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Push to Reinstate Federal Spending Freeze
Deep Look: Trump’s Federal Spending Freeze Rejected by Court
A Major Legal Setback for the Trump Administration
In the latest legal blow to President Donald Trump’s economic policies, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against reinstating his sweeping freeze on federal grants and loans.
The case centers on a controversial Trump administration directive that aimed to pause trillions of dollars in federal funding, a move that sparked lawsuits from nearly two dozen Democratic-led states.
The ruling is part of a growing list of court challenges to Trump’s executive actions, which have included efforts to:
- End birthright citizenship.
- Limit federal worker protections.
- Restrict diversity and environmental programs.
Court’s Rationale: Trump Overstepped Authority
The appeals court rejected Justice Department arguments that the spending freeze was necessary for budgetary control, siding instead with states that argued:
- The president cannot unilaterally block money already approved by Congress.
- The freeze was causing major disruptions in education, healthcare, and environmental programs.
The ruling leaves in place a lower court decision by U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who found the Trump administration had not fully obeyed a previous court order to restore funding.
“The administration must immediately take every step necessary to unfreeze all federal grants and loans,” McConnell ordered.
What’s at Stake: Federal Programs and FEMA Funding
The spending freeze halted billions in funding for:
- Early childhood education programs
- Environmental protections
- HIV prevention research
- Federal disaster relief (FEMA funds for NYC migrant housing)
McConnell also ruled that the administration cannot cut billions in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had been targeted for reductions last week.
Trump Administration’s Response: White House Defends Freeze
The Trump administration has framed the spending pause as a way to:
- Align the budget with the president’s priorities, including:
- Expanding fossil fuel production
- Cutting diversity and inclusion programs
- Rolling back transgender protections
- Control federal spending and prevent fraud.
The Justice Department called the court ruling “intolerable judicial overreach,” arguing that:
“A single district court judge has attempted to wrest from the President the power to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ This state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist for one more day.”
The Broader Legal Battle Over Federal Spending
The case is part of a larger legal fight over presidential authority on federal funding.
- Trump rescinded his original memo freezing grants and loans, but the court found that the administration had not fully complied with its order to restore funds.
- Another federal judge in Washington also issued a temporary restraining order against the spending freeze, citing concerns that nonprofits were not receiving their funding.
What’s Next? More Court Battles Ahead
The case now returns to Judge McConnell, who is expected to:
- Clarify his original ruling.
- Ensure full restoration of frozen funds.
- Evaluate further legal challenges from the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, Trump’s broader economic agenda faces increasing hurdles in court, as challenges mount over his tariff policies, immigration restrictions, and federal worker directives.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.