A coalition of 24 Democratic attorneys general announced on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, that they are suing to prevent the White House from implementing a freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants, loans, and other aid funding.
The lawsuit comes in response to a Monday night memorandum from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which directed a spending freeze on federal assistance to take effect by 5 p.m. Tuesday. The freeze could impact a broad range of programs, including funding for nonprofits, universities, small business loans, and state and local government grants.
The White House memo states that approximately $3 trillion was spent on federal assistance programs in 2024.
Legal Challenges from State Attorneys General
New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were the first states to announce their intent to file suit on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. They were later joined by attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha strongly criticized the memorandum, calling it “astonishing” and “written in such a way that it was barely understandable.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, speaking from the passenger seat of a car during a virtual press conference, argued that the memo’s vague wording was intentional. “It was ambiguous by design,” Bonta stated.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who last year secured a nearly $500 million judgment against President Trump and his company, called the directive unconstitutional.
“This president has exceeded his authority, trampled the Constitution, and undermined a coequal branch of government,” James said, accusing the administration of attempting to override congressional spending authority.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin echoed these concerns.
“He does not get to wake up in the morning or after an afternoon nap and direct his entire government to stop funding critical services that Congress has duly authorized and appropriated,” Platkin stated.
White House Justification for the Freeze
According to the OMB memo, the spending pause is intended to align federal funding with the administration’s priorities, which include “advancing a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and making America healthy again.”
The directive requires federal agencies to assess compliance with President Trump’s executive orders, specifically targeting “DEI, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal.” However, the memo does not clearly define these terms or specify which programs will be affected.
Immediate Legal Response
Even before state attorneys general filed their lawsuit, a coalition of advocacy groups—including the National Council of Nonprofits and the American Public Health Association—petitioned a federal judge for an emergency order to halt the freeze.
On Tuesday, a judge issued an administrative stay, temporarily blocking the funding suspension until at least Monday, February 3, to allow time for further litigation.
The legal battle over the spending freeze is expected to intensify in the coming days, with critics arguing that the administration’s directive unlawfully overrides congressional authority and could disrupt essential services nationwide.
(CBSN)