A federal judge in Boston ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to enact significant funding cuts using a specific clause about agency priorities. This decision follows a lawsuit filed by 23 states, challenging the use of the clause for making cuts to crucial areas such as crime prevention, food security, and scientific research. The states argued that the clause’s application threatened current and future grants.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a summary judgment that prevents the administration from utilizing the clause to make funding cuts. She also denied the motion by the government to dismiss the case. Talwani stated, “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 was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
The lawsuit against the administration claims that the Office of Management and Budget exploited the clause to initiate what was described as a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign.” Initially introduced in 2020 and revised in 2024, the clause allows federal agents to terminate a grant if it no longer meets program goals or agency priorities. According to the states, the clause was being misused to revoke grants for the first time since its inception.
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the Trump administration’s actions. She stated that instead of collaborating to enhance public safety and reduce costs for New Jersey residents, the administration recklessly cut federal funding illegally. 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.” Davenport condemned the administration’s strategy of jeopardizing critical programs for personal and political motives.
Lawyers representing the federal government argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed, noting some grants were already terminated and the states’ concerns over future grants were speculative. They accused the states of presenting generic objections without seeking concrete relief to restore any specific grant. They argued that this mismatch between the alleged unlawful agency decision and the vague relief requested leads to jurisdictional and judicial issues that should terminate the lawsuit at the outset.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget has not commented on the ruling.