Politics
Federal judge blocks White House freeze on 'financial assistance' amid anger, confusion
WASHINGTON — A federal judge Tuesday temporarily blocked a Trump administration directive that would have frozen an array of federal financial aid while the administration assessed whether it comported with the new president’s agenda, finding the directive had the potential to cause “irreparable harm” to Americans.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan delayed the Office of Management and Budget memorandum from taking effect until at least 5 p.m. Monday, while a legal challenge to it by a coalition of nonprofit organizations plays out.
The ruling by AliKhan, an appointee of President Biden, followed a rush of confusion and anger among Democratic leaders, state officials and federal program managers over the directive’s vagueness, as well as efforts by the White House to walk back its scope after first issuing the memo late Monday.
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn. — part of the coalition that sued — said the directive had the potential to cause “a lot of dysfunction and the loss of services,” and welcomed the judge’s decision to halt it while the litigation proceeds.
“When you run a nonprofit or a small business, and basically your bank account has been, in effect, closed … you have no sense of whether you’re going to get reimbursed for that work — that’s a big problem,” he said.
The administration’s order was also facing a separate legal challenge from California and other states, where officials argued the directive was an unconstitutional power grab by President Trump that would harm vulnerable populations.
“We will not stand by while the president attempts to disrupt vital programs that feed our kids, provide medical care to our families and support housing in our communities,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said at a news conference. “We won’t stand by while the president breaks the law and oversteps his authority, as outlined in our Constitution.”
Bonta said the order threatens trillions of dollars in federal funding, and was “reckless, it is dangerous, unprecedented in scope and devastating in its intended effect.”
New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who is leading the effort with Bonta, called the memo “plainly unconstitutional.”
“The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom,” James said. “When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim.”
Bonta and James spoke after a day of swirling speculation about the scope of the order — which the White House downplayed even as it worked to specify the order’s reach.
The White House issued an updated memo Tuesday that expanded a list of programs exempted from the funding pause, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the food assistance program known as SNAP. Also exempted would be federal funding for small businesses, farmers, Pell Grant recipients, Head Start, rental assistance “and other similar programs,” the White House said.
Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s press secretary, said that the directive was “not a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs” and that anyone receiving “individual assistance from the federal government” would continue receiving that aid. She also noted that the cuts, which were meant to take effect Tuesday afternoon, were temporary, and that leaders of federal programs were free to call Trump budget officials to make the case that their programs should not be frozen.
She also suggested the administration was clear on the order’s scope, and confusion on that front was limited to the media.
Both James and Bonta said the White House’s attempts to minimize the scope of the order after confusing program managers and terrifying benefit recipients across the country did not resolve their concerns or negate the need for their lawsuit.
On the contrary, Bonta said that the initial order had “thrown state programs into chaos,” and the White House’s attempts to clarify it had “further fueled” the confusion.
James said some states were already reporting that funds had been frozen, including for programs that the White House said would not be affected. Many states had been shut out of their Medicaid reimbursement systems, she said. Other programs affected in different states included Head Start and child development block grants, she said.
California is expected to distribute $168.3 billion in federal funds and grants through the fiscal year that ends June 30. Officials are assessing what of that funding is at risk. Los Angeles officials were also scrambling to make sense of the order, which could affect housing vouchers and homeless assistance grants, according to internal emails.
Bonta said he is coordinating with other state officials, and believes that federal disaster relief funding for the recovery from L.A.’s devastating wildfires remains at risk under the order.
Gov. Gavin Newsom said he remained confident in the state’s partnership with the federal government to meet fire-related needs, but also said the directive on financial aid was “completely inconsistent with the law.”
“It’s unconstitutional and I think any objective observer sees that,” he said.
The uproar began late Monday, after Matthew J. Vaeth, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a memo announcing a “temporary pause” on grants, loans and other financial assistance.
Vaeth wrote that voters had given Trump a “mandate to increase the impact of every federal taxpayer dollar,” and Trump needed to determine which spending by the government aligned with his agenda.
“Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again,” he wrote. “The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve.”
Democrats immediately began sounding alarms and calling the directive unconstitutional and far beyond the scope of Trump’s power as president, given that Congress, not the White House, generally appropriates funding.
Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said the fact that “Congress holds the power of the purse” is “very clear in the Constitution.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, called the White House move “a constitutional crisis.” His committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on Trump’s nomination of Russ Vought as White House budget chief. Vought is the architect of the spending freeze.
The original memorandum ordered all federal agencies to conduct a “comprehensive analysis” of their spending to determine which of it is “consistent with the President’s policies” and the raft of executive orders that Trump has issued.
In the interim, it said, federal agencies must — to “the extent permissible under applicable laws” — pause all disbursements of funds or “other relevant agency activities” that may be covered by Trump’s orders, “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” Vaeth wrote.
The pause, the memo said, will give the Trump administration time to “determine the best uses of the funding” moving forward.
Leading Republicans largely defended the move — suggesting it was a normal act for an incoming administration.
“I think that’s a normal practice at the beginning of administration, until they have an opportunity to review how the money is being spent,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday morning.
Democrats disagreed — issuing especially critical reactions prior to the White House’s clarifications.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the directive “outrageous” and “a dagger at the heart of the average American family in red states and blue states, in cities, in suburbs, in rural areas.”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) wrote that Trump’s “illegal scheme will raise costs, hurt working families and deny critical resources for Americans in need.” Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) said the order will cause Americans to suffer.
A coalition including the American Public Health Assn. and the National Council of Nonprofits is independently challenging the memo in court, as well.
The order followed a separate directive by the Trump administration to halt a range of foreign aid.
Mark Peterson, a UCLA professor who studies public policy and political science, said the original memo was without precedent and left “extreme ambiguity as to what it affects and how it applies,” as well as its duration.
“Anything that has, from the point of view of the Trump administration, the aroma of dealing with equity or inclusion issues could be put under threat,” Peterson said — and “there’s so much misunderstanding about what those issues are.”
Times staff writers Pinho reported from Washington, Rector from San Francisco and Alpert Reyes from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.
The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”
After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.
That’s when things took a curious turn.
A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”
Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.
That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.
Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.
“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”
He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.
But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.
Or should be.
Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.
It’s also Trump Country.
Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.
St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.
“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”
He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.
“Right?” he called out.
“No!” a voice hollered back.
Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.
Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.
Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)
He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.
A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.
“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”
And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”
The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.
Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”
Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.
-
Alaska2 minutes agoAlaska Senate committee unveils crime bill package in final weeks of the legislative session
-
Arizona8 minutes agoThis Arizona Red Rock Formation Looks Exactly Like a Peanuts Character
-
Arkansas14 minutes agoBankers: Arkansas Farmers Walking A Tightrope That Gets Thinner Each Season
-
California20 minutes agoFederal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
-
Colorado26 minutes agoImmigration officer charged after shoving protester to ground in Colorado
-
Connecticut32 minutes agoNew Rankings Reinforce Connecticut’s Decades-Long Affordability Problem
-
Delaware38 minutes agoHumane Society of Delaware County picks new CEO
-
Florida44 minutes agoEvacuations underway as crews battle multiple wildfires in Georgia and Florida