Summary

A federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s freeze on all federal grants and loans, which was set to begin Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, pauses the freeze until February 3, with a hearing scheduled for Monday.

The funding halt caused widespread disruptions, shutting down Medicaid portals and Head Start programs.

Trump’s order sought to review agencies’ commitments to DEI and environmental policies.

Attorneys general from 23 states have sued to oppose the freeze.

  • Drusas
    link
    fedilink
    822 hours ago

    This is his second major loss. He already had his birthright citizenship revocation blocked as well.

    Of course, neither are really “major” until they are made permanent.

  • plz1
    link
    English
    331 day ago

    He blocked it for like a week, I hardly call that a “major loss”.

    • vortic
      link
      151 day ago

      Loren AliKhan

      She.

      Also, yes, she blocked it for a week. She blocked it immediately because it has a significant chance of causing harm if it were to take effect immediately. This gives her time to consider the issue and give a real ruling. The fact that she blocked the order from going into effect so quickly indicates that she thinks that she is likely to block the order altogether.

      You’re right, it’s not a “major loss” for Trump yet, but it is shaping up to be one. I expect she will block this, it will get appealed to the DC Court of Appeals who will affirm, then SCOTUS will decline to hear the subsequent appeal.

      • @pivot_root
        link
        224 hours ago

        SCOTUS will decline to hear the subsequent appeal.

        You have more faith in them than I do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 day ago

        Also, likelihood of success on the merits. It’s a flag that the judge is pretty confident that the order will be struck down after going through all the procedures. Those take times, which is why chance of causing harm is also considered. If it’s both likely to succeed on the merits, and would hurt if not blocked right now (and a few other things), then it shouldn’t be allowed to play out while all the procedure is being done.

        • vortic
          link
          21 day ago

          Thanks, yes. This is what I was trying to say but didn’t quite manage to state correctly.

        • vortic
          link
          21 day ago

          Trump’s order never went into effect. The judge blocked his order before it could take effect.

          It’s unlikely that it will ever take effect either as evidenced by the injunction. The judge wouldn’t have issued an injunction if she didn’t think there was:

          1. a substantial likelihood that the law would have significant negative impacts if it were to take effect and
          2. a strong likelihood that Trump’s order would be permanently blocked upon further review.
    • @Fredselfish
      link
      251 day ago

      So did they get access to the funds? Just because a judge did this doesn’t mean Trump people listen.

      • @bassomitron
        link
        English
        431 day ago

        Yes, as far as I’m aware. At least the medicaid portals came back online yesterday evening. President does NOT have the power of the purse. If SCOTUS ultimately rules against this, which would be insane because the constitution literally spells this exact phrasing out, then it’ll be among the last proverbial nails in the coffin for checks and balances.

        • @dhork
          link
          English
          23
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          “Power of the purse” is an abstract concept, and I don’t think Trump is capable of that kind of thought. He is transactional and authoritarian. He views being President as being the ultimate boss. Why can’t the boss impose his will on “his” employees? We know it’s because those people work for America, not for him personally. But he is incapable of acknowledging the difference.

          So, those portals go back online, because some Undersecretary of Somethingorother interpreted a lawful court ruling properly, and continues to disburse funds according to law. Guess what? That person is getting summarily fired and replaced with someone who only listens to The Boss. The portal will go down again at some point, this time for good.

          • @bassomitron
            link
            English
            111 day ago

            True, I don’t disagree.

            As for your last sentence, the freeze was originally intended to last 2 weeks while they “analyzed” everything. In my opinion, they usually pull these very public stunts that they know will draw everyone’s attention while they’re doing other crazy and/or corrupt shenanigans. While everyone’s distracted, those other shenanigans don’t get much–if any–news coverage.

            • vortic
              link
              11 day ago

              I wonder what things are slipping by while we’re all distracted by this insanity…

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      291 day ago

      All he found out was another name to add to the purge list. He’s gonna ignore it all and keep going. Even if the SCOTUS tells him they are not going to back him up, they have already given up all enforcement capability with their immunity decision.

      The sole (lawful) remedy is impeachment. He can ignore the courts and Congress entirely as long as a majority of the House (or just 34 Senators ) let him.

      • @just_another_person
        link
        161 day ago

        Well that’s not true at all. Wait until California stops sending funds to DC for constitutional breaches and failures. Can’t pick and choose without consequences.

        • @orclev
          link
          101 day ago

          That would play into his hands. He wants to fuck up the federal government and blocking a significant chunk of tax income would help with that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            111 day ago

            He doesn’t want to reduce the budget overall, but rather limit spending and direct that money to his rich owners and “friends”.

            • @orclev
              link
              31 day ago

              He would prefer that, but he’d gladly take anything that damages government organizations. Remember he’s the kind of guy that would rather destroy something than let someone else get any benefit out of it. If he doesn’t profit from it in some fashion it’s a target.

        • Bob Robertson IX
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 day ago

          Except it isn’t like California writes a check to DC every month. In order for California to stop sending money to DC then every employer with an employee in California would need to stop deducting federal taxes from everyone’s paychecks. I don’t think our (m/b)illionaire owners are going to allow that to happen.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          71 day ago

          … consequences.

          What world do you live in? Not only has Donald never experienced any real consequences, he has consistently been rewarded.