The Trump administration has made no secret that it dislikes disbursing money authorized by Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But on Tuesday, a federal judge issued an order “requiring the agencies to turn the funding spigots back on.”
Under President Donald Trump, federal agencies have used his executive orders to justify withholding Congressionally authorized grants and contracts, many of which had already been awarded. But U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who Trump appointed during his first term, said the administration’s actions were “neither reasonable nor reasonably explained.”
“The broad powers that [Office of Management and Budget], the [National Economic Council] Director, and the five Agencies assert are nowhere to be found in federal law,” McElroy wrote.
In addition to Office of Management and Budget and the National Economic Council, five federal agencies are being sued by just as many plaintiffs. The EPA, for example, is being sued by the Childhood Lead Action Project, which received $500,000 to fight childhood lead poisoning in Rhode Island. The other agencies include Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.
This case is separate from another one, in which the Trump administration told Citibank to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in funds already held in nonprofits’ bank accounts. In that case, a federal judge said the Trump administration — and specifically the EPA — acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when terminating contracts with three nonprofits. The judge issued a temporary restraining order that required the EPA and Citibank to give nonprofits access to funds in their accounts.
McElroy acknowledged the Trump administration is within its rights to steer the country in a certain direction, though there are limits.
“The Court wants to be crystal clear: elections have consequences and the President is entitled to enact his agenda. The judiciary does not and cannot decide whether his policies are sound,” the judge wrote.
“But where the federal courts are constitutionally required to weigh in — meaning we, by law, have no choice but to do so — are cases ‘about the procedure’ (or lack thereof) that the Government follows in trying to enact those policies.”
Many companies and nonprofits have objected through court filings to the Trump administration’s control over executive branch departments and agencies to undo the effects of legislation that was passed by Congress and signed into law under the previous administration.
Here, McElroy agrees with the plaintiffs. “Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration.”
