WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against a policy from the Trump administration that aimed to review federal grants and loans to ensure alignment with the administration’s priorities. This initiative was met with criticism from lawmakers and legal experts, who deemed it unconstitutional.

The lawsuit contesting this policy emerged shortly after it was made public during President Donald Trump’s second week back in office.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan instructed the Trump administration to continue grant funding until at least February 3, when the court will revisit the issue.

The judge noted that her temporary ruling seeks to “maintain the status quo.” However, this ruling does not prevent the Trump administration from ceasing funding for new programs or compel it to restore funding that has already been terminated.

A number of advocacy organizations, led by Democracy Forward—including the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, the Main Street Alliance, and SAGE, which represents LGBTQ+ advocates—requested the court to block the policy to prevent “catastrophic” consequences for various communities.

Diane Yentel, CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, welcomed the judge’s decision but warned that the funding freeze is only a temporary measure.

“We still have significant work ahead in the courts, Congress, and other avenues to ensure that this reckless action, or attempted action, by the Office of Management and Budget cannot proceed in the long-term.”

Jessica Morton, an attorney for the advocacy groups, expressed that the funding freeze would “result in undeniable, immediate, and serious harm.”

Conversely, Daniel Schwei, a lawyer from the Justice Department representing the Trump administration, argued that many of the nonprofits involved in the lawsuit do not receive federal grants directly, and thus, they failed to demonstrate that a freeze would cause them irreversible harm.

Additionally, at least six Democratic state attorneys general—representing New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—have filed a similar lawsuit.

“This policy is reckless, hazardous, illegal, and unconstitutional,” stated New York Attorney General Letitia James at a press conference regarding their lawsuit.

Both lawsuits share a legal basis asserting that the Constitution designates Congress as the body that controls spending, leaving the president without that power. The memo issued by Trump’s Office of Management and Budget proposed a pause on spending while officials evaluated whether grant recipients were using the funds according to his administration’s priorities.

According to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a president can propose to rescind funds to Congress, but if Congress does not approve within 45 days, the funds must be allocated. In a 1996 ruling, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional, which would allow presidents to cancel specific portions of legislation.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that this pause would not apply to direct assistance to individuals, such as Social Security, Medicare, or food stamp benefits.

“This is not a blanket suspension of federal assistance and grant programs from the Trump administration,” Leavitt stated. “Nevertheless, it is the president’s duty to ensure proper management of taxpayer funds.”

Leavitt elaborated that the purpose of the memo is to stop funding for programs the president opposes, including initiatives related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, as well as the Green New Deal. Specific funding in question includes $37 million earmarked for the World Health Organization, which Trump directed the U.S. to withdraw from, and $50 million allocated for condoms for individuals in Gaza, which Leavitt labeled as “a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“President Trump is acting in your best interest by implementing this pause,” she asserted.