Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Bid to Reimpose Federal Funding Freeze

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to reinstate a freeze on federal grants, loans, and other funding programs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit rejected the request, stating that the administration failed to provide specific reasons for the freeze.

The Trump administration had previously implemented the funding freeze, citing concerns over financial oversight and spending control. However, a lower court blocked the freeze, ruling that it lacked proper justification. The administration then sought an emergency pause on that decision, but the appeals court denied the request.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel stated that the administration did not present any legal authority to support its claim. The judges also noted that there was no clear evidence of harm that would result from continuing federal payments. “The defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay,” the court wrote.

This decision means that federal funds will continue to be distributed as planned. The ruling is seen as a significant legal defeat for the administration, which has been pushing to reduce federal spending in various sectors.

Legal experts believe the decision strengthens the lower court’s ruling and limits the administration’s ability to unilaterally freeze federal funds. The case may still be appealed to the Supreme Court, but for now, the funding remains active.

The Trump administration has yet to respond to the ruling, but officials previously argued that the freeze was necessary to ensure responsible government spending. Critics, however, see the move as an attempt to restrict funding for programs that the administration opposes.

With this ruling, many states and organizations relying on federal grants and loans can continue their programs without disruption. The decision highlights the limits of executive power in controlling federal funds without clear legal backing.