WASHINGTON − On Monday, a federal judge remarked that the Trump administration seems to be hindering access to federal grants, despite recent court orders aimed at halting the administration’s funding freeze.

During a hearing to determine if additional orders are necessary, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan highlighted a claim from an organization that asserted it had been unable to access funds since the White House Office of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to suspend funding.

The small nonprofit, which assists West Virginians with disabilities in living independently, typically receives reimbursements on an as-needed basis from the Department of Health and Human Services to cover immediate expenses. The nonprofit’s name was kept confidential in the court documents.

Although the organization managed to access the funding portal following AliKhan’s temporary freeze on the funding suspension, they reported to the court that funds were not accessible as of Sunday.

Consequently, the organization had to lay off one of its five staff members, reduce services, and may shut down entirely if funding is not restored, they claimed.

This assertion was part of a series of statements presented by a coalition of advocacy groups contesting the Office of Management and Budget’s directive to federal agencies to pause grants and loans to ensure alignment with President Donald Trump’s priorities.

This funding freeze is also being contested by 22 states, mainly led by Democrats, along with the District of Columbia, who argue that this policy could have a severe impact on their financial situations.

A federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order against the administration on Friday, and AliKhan indicated that she might issue a similar order by 5 p.m. on Monday.

The vaguely structured memo from the Office of Management and Budget was withdrawn the day after AliKhan temporarily blocked it, pending further hearings from both sides on Monday.

However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump’s funding freeze directive is still active, adding to the confusion surrounding the previously issued memo.

AliKhan suggested that Leavitt’s comments implied that the withdrawn memo is still applicable.

Daniel Schwei, representing the Justice Department, countered this, stating that the memo was retracted because it had become a “side show,” but emphasized that the broader aim of reviewing expenditures, in line with Trump’s executive orders and agencies’ discretionary powers, remains intact and legally grounded.

“The key issue in this case is whether the president and his advisors can instruct agencies to pause funding, in accordance with their existing statutory authorities, to ensure that spending aligns with the president’s priorities,” Schwei explained. “The answer to that question must be `yes.'”

Kevin Friedl, an attorney for Democracy Forward, which is advocating for a coalition of advocacy groups, stated that their challenge pertains specifically to the administration’s “blanket freeze.”

“And the evidence clearly indicates that this freeze is still in effect,” Friedl asserted.