Another setback for Trump: Federal judge blocks his attempt to freeze funds

The federal judge John McConnell in Rhode Island dealt another blow to the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump this Thursday by blocking the order that prevents the freezing of trillions of dollars in grants and loans.

The decision comes amidst rising tensions between the Executive and Congress regarding control over the federal budget, and it reinforces the legal hurdles the White House faces in implementing its plan for massive cuts to government spending, according to the agency AP.

McConnell issued a preliminary restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by nearly two dozen Democratic states, which argued that the pause in funding caused confusion and anxiety nationwide.

In his ruling, the judge stated that the Executive was attempting to position itself above Congress and that this action "undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government."

An attempt at power without a legal basis

"The Executive has not indicated any constitutional or statutory authority that allows it to impose this type of categorical freeze," McConnell wrote. "The Court is not limiting the Executive's discretion nor interfering with the administration of federal funds."

Rather, according to the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence, the Court simply holds that the Executive's discretion to impose its own political preferences on allocated funds can only be exercised if authorized by the allocation laws approved by Congress.

The states that filed the lawsuit have indicated that numerous programs are still awaiting the disbursement of federal funds or any confirmation regarding whether they will receive the money.

McConnell agreed that the plaintiffs have demonstrated standing in the case, citing "dozens of statements illustrating the effects of the indiscriminate and unpredictable freezing of federal funds" and how this impacts essential services in the states.

The Attorney General of Rhode Island, Peter Neronha, accused Trump of attempting to "undermine the rule of law in favor of an illegal executive power" through his executive orders.

The Supreme Court also rejects the blocking of funds

In a new setback for Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected this Wednesday Trump's request to halt the payment of nearly 2 billion dollars in previously frozen funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The ruling compels the administration to comply with the order of a lower court and to define how to proceed with the outstanding payments. However, although the decision does not immediately require the release of the funds, it could lead to further delays in the financing of international aid programs.

Four judges voted against the decision, arguing that a single district judge should not have the power to compel the federal government to disburse such a large amount of taxpayer money.

Trump's strategy to reduce foreign aid

Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has sought to massively reduce foreign aid spending, arguing that he aims to align international policy with national interests. In February, he ordered a restructuring of USAID, transferring its control to the State Department and appointing Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the agency's interim director.

That same month, in an interview, Trump stated that "the United States has been swindled for too long" and that reducing foreign aid is crucial to curb the rising national debt. As part of that strategy, social media accounts and the USAID website were deactivated, and their headquarters in Washington was sealed off with yellow tape.

Congress and various human rights organizations have strongly criticized these actions, denouncing the dismissals of officials and the suspension of funding to aid groups. Meanwhile, the courts have started to halt the president's attempts to block financing, adding new obstacles to his policy of reducing federal spending.

Bad news for independent Cuban media and other organizations

In the Cuban context, the measure to block funding has significant consequences for independent media and NGOs that received funding from USAID with the aim of promoting democracy and human rights on the island.

The suspension of financial support puts the continuity of these initiatives at risk, limiting essential resources for their operation.

The absorption of USAID by the State Department and the freezing of foreign aid represent a significant shift in the United States' international assistance policy, with potential repercussions for organizations and projects in Cuba and other regions that relied on this aid.

Undoubtedly, these types of decisions raise concerns about the impact on non-governmental organizations and Cuban media that relied on U.S. external aid.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Freezing of Funds by the Trump Administration