Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Cut Federal Funding

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston has ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to make significant funding cuts using an obscure clause about agency priorities.

This decision comes after twenty-three states filed a lawsuit last year. They accused the administration of exploiting the clause to reduce funding for various programs, including crime prevention and scientific research. The states feared these cuts would jeopardize current and future grants.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a summary judgment against the administration’s use of the clause. She denied the government’s bid to dismiss the case, stating that their interpretation violated the Spending Clause’s requirement for clear and unambiguous conditions.

“Defendants’ interpretation of the Termination Clause is not clearly supported by the text of the provision, runs counter to the regulatory scheme, receives no support in the rulemaking history, and would violate the Spending Clause’s requirement that conditions be imposed unambiguously,” Talwani wrote.

The lawsuit claimed the Office of Management and Budget promoted the clause to justify widespread funding cuts. Initially introduced in 2020 and revised in 2024, the clause allows agents to terminate grants if they no longer serve program goals or agency priorities.

The states argued this language was used for the first time under the Biden administration, leading to the termination of numerous grants.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the Trump administration’s actions. She stated, “Instead of working with us to keep the public safe and lower costs for hardworking New Jerseyans, the Trump Administration has recklessly and illegally gutted federal funding for public safety, disaster preparedness, scientific research, clean water, and more.”

She added, “Today’s decision is an important win for all New Jerseyans and confirms that the Trump Administration defied the law when it embarked on its campaign to gut critical federal funding to the states.”

Lawyers for the federal government described the case as unusual and argued for dismissal. They claimed some grants had already been terminated and criticized the states for objections without seeking relief to restore any specific grant.

Federal lawyers contended there were jurisdictional and justiciability flaws undermining the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comments.