A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from canceling $11 billion in pandemic-era public health funding, following a lawsuit filed by 23 states and several U.S. territories. The court’s decision marks a major legal setback for the administration and a temporary victory for state leaders fighting to preserve critical health services for millions of Americans.
What’s the Legal Dispute About?
The lawsuit centers around funding originally distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This $11 billion was intended to support long-term public health programs, even beyond the pandemic. According to the attorneys general (AGs) leading the lawsuit, the money was explicitly maintained by Congress, even after the national emergency ended.
Despite that, the Trump administration abruptly canceled the funding on March 24, arguing that it was no longer needed now that the pandemic had ended. In response, a coalition of 23 state attorneys general filed suit, claiming the move was illegal, damaging, and unsupported by any evidence that grant recipients had violated the terms of their agreements.
Judge’s Ruling: A Strong Case and Irreparable Harm
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee serving in Rhode Island, sided with the states. In her order from the bench, she granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), blocking the administration from scrapping the grants while the lawsuit moves forward.
“The likelihood of success on the merits is extremely strong,” Judge McElroy said.
“The record is voluminous … with allegations of irreparable harm.”
She also said the states made a strong case that they would eventually win the lawsuit, citing the widespread impact the cuts would have on health programs nationwide.
What’s at Stake?
If the federal health funding isn’t restored, critical public health programs could be shut down across the country. The complaint from the AGs warns of:
- Massive layoffs of state and local health workers
- The collapse of programs addressing infectious disease tracking
- Reduced access to mental health and substance abuse services
- Loss of funding for immunizations and emergency preparedness
- Disruption in modernizing public health infrastructure
“These termination notices … immediately triggered chaos,” the lawsuit states, explaining that many jurisdictions rely heavily on this funding for core health operations.
Which States Are Suing?
The lawsuit includes states like California, New York, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina, Washington, and Oregon, among others. The District of Columbia, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, are also part of the case.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a vocal critic of the cuts, celebrated the ruling:
“We just got a court order to temporarily block Trump’s illegal cuts to billions in vital state health funding,” she posted on X (formerly Twitter).
She added that her office will continue fighting to protect the healthcare services Americans rely on.
What Are the States Arguing?
The states argue that Congress never intended for the $11 billion in public health funds to be tied strictly to the COVID-19 emergency. In fact, Congress had already reviewed and revoked $27 billion in pandemic-related money—but chose to keep this $11 billion intact, knowing it was vital for broader public health efforts.
“The foreseeable end of the COVID-19 pandemic is not a lawful basis to terminate public health funding,” the complaint says.
States also point out that no violations of the funding agreements were cited by the Trump administration, making the decision to cut the funds legally unsupported.