By Tony Romm, Jeff Stein, Jacob Bogage, Emily Davies · (c) 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from imposing a sweeping pause on federal spending, after the new White House policy caused significant disruptions to programs that fund schools, provide housing and ensure low-income Americans have access to health care.
The court prevented the restrictions from taking effect at least until Feb. 3, allowing a coalition of public health advocates, nonprofits and businesses – represented by the left-leaning group Democracy Forward – to proceed with their case challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s actions.
The decision arrived on a day of vast confusion and chaos in Washington, where few appeared to understand the scope and intention of a White House memo that had directed agencies to “temporarily pause” the disbursement of key funds. Even before it officially took effect at 5 p.m. Tuesday, thousands of government services – totaling billions of dollars and dedicated primarily to Americans’ health, safety and well-being – appeared to be at risk of shutting down, at least temporarily.
For hours, many states on Tuesday reported issues accessing funds under Medicaid, even though the White House later said it wasn’t supposed to be affected by the spending halt. Preschool centers struggled to obtain reimbursements from the federal program known as Head Start, putting some child-care services at financial risk.
A web portal that housing providers use to draw down money for government voucher and rental assistance funds stopped working Tuesday, though the cause was not immediately clear. And federal health and education officials similarly said they had to halt work in response to the mixed messages from the White House. That delayed money for some after-school programs, charter schools and the Special Olympics, a spokesperson for the Education Department confirmed.
The uncertainty forced the White House to clarify its approach by midday: In a newdirective, the Office of Management and Budget said it sought only to bring spending in line with the president’s recent executive orders, including those that clamp down on foreign aid and funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, which Trump has called “radical and wasteful.”
But the conflicting and muddled instructions still proved disruptive, sparking widespread concern – particularly among Democrats – about the administration’s willingness to subvert Congress on matters of federal spending. And it triggered a bevy of new legal threats, as Democratic attorneys general from roughly two dozen states prepared to file their own lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s spending freeze.
“The Trump White House freeze on congressionally mandated federal aid is reckless and unprecedented,” Phil Weiser, the attorney general of Colorado, said in a statement. “This action takes the power of the purse away from Congress, violates the separation of powers, and is already causing massive harm in Colorado, undermining delivery of healthcare, education, and public safety.”
By instituting a freeze, the White House illustrated in the starkest terms to date that Trump is willing to test the limits of the president’s authority over the budget. The U.S. Constitution affords the power of the purse to Congress, but Trump has signaled he could circumvent lawmakers anyway, potentially terminating entire categories of spending that he opposes.
Under a 1974 budget law, the White House can temporarily delay federal funds only if certain procedures are met and conditions followed – not simply because the White House disapproves of its purpose, according to David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School.
But Trump and his incoming budget chief, Russell Vought, have indicated they believe that law is unconstitutional. Instead, they have publicly embraced a controversial power, known as impoundment, that could allow them to reduce or eliminate spending regardless of the amounts enacted by Congress.
Dan Jacobson, who served as the budget office’s general counsel under the Biden administration, said in an interview the pause is “very likely illegal,” adding: “There’s a lot of money that can get swept up under this that couldn’t be paused even if they did follow the law’s framework.”
On Tuesday, congressional Republicans generally heralded Trump’s efforts to clamp down on spending. “We’ve got a math problem on this country,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina), a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a GOP retreat in Doral, Florida. “We spend more than we make.”
But the controversial stance still primed the White House for a constitutional clash over its budgetary authorities, while worrying Democrats, who argued that Trump risked setting a dangerous precedent that carries significant costs for the millions of families and organizations that rely on uninterrupted federal aid. Some party lawmakers also called on the Senate to hold off on confirming Vought to lead OMB, as they looked to gather more answers from the administration.
“The scope of what you are ordering is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country,” warned Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut) and Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), the top Democrats on their chambers’ appropriations committees, in a letter to the OMB.
The scramble began late Monday, after the White House budget office circulated a list of spending programs under scrutiny that seemed to implicate virtually every function of the federal government. The funds it identified for review included a vast array of initiatives that help the poor, potentially arresting funds that provide rental vouchers, nutrition benefits and college aid to low-income Americans.
The administration also pointed to federal programs that inspect meat, poultry and eggs for potential foodborne illnesses, and payments to farmers whose crops are ravaged by natural disasters. And they included a sizable roster of initiatives to protect public health, seemingly aiming to freeze money meant to fight the spread of AIDS, research cancer causes and detection, and prepare for bioterrorism attacks.
Many budget experts could not tell if the administration actually intended to target each of those programs, since its list appeared to encompass such a significant amount of federal spending. But its exhaustive nature still set off alarm bells, particularly at a time when the White House has actively punished federal officials seen as disobeying Trump’s orders.
“In some ways this is tantamount to a federal government shutdown,” said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning group. “There’s nothing here to say at 5 p.m. this evening these things will continue, and funding will continue to flow. It’s destructive chaos that will hurt real people.”
As the initial guidance roiled federal agencies, OMB officials soon tried to clarify their approach. In a follow-up message, they stressed the freeze is not supposed to affect services that provide “direct benefits to individuals,” including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, according to a copy of the document obtained by The Washington Post.
The Trump administration also said it has set up a process for agencies to work with the White House on evaluating their funding and already has approved “many programs to continue” operating normally. Otherwise, OMB said some spending could come back online in as quickly as a day, as the White House looked to deflect criticism that it had taken radical action.
“To individuals at home who receive direct assistance from the federal government, you will not be impacted by this federal freeze,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. She later added that the administration is “analyzing the federal government’s spending, which is exactly what the American people elected Donald Trump to do.”
– – –
Hannah Knowles, Laura Meckler, Dan Diamond and Rachel Siegel contributed to this report.