Federal Judge Mary McElroy has halted the Trump administration’s attempt to claw back $11 billion in pandemic health funding, delivering a temporary victory to 23 states and the District of Columbia who sued to keep the money flowing.
Key Takeaways
- A Trump-appointed federal judge temporarily blocked the administration’s plan to cut $11 billion in public health funding to states
- The funding supports critical programs including disease tracking, vaccine access, mental health services, and elderly care
- The Trump administration justified the cuts by arguing the pandemic is over and the funds are “no longer necessary”
- Public health departments across the country have already begun laying off staff and scaling back services
- The court ruled states made a “strong case” they would succeed on the merits of their lawsuit
Court Intervenes in Funding Dispute
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by President Trump after being initially nominated by President Obama, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from withdrawing billions in public health funding. The decision came after 23 states and Washington D.C. filed suit claiming the administration had “abruptly and arbitrarily terminated” the funding on March 24. The coalition of states argued these funds remain essential for current public health initiatives, including disease surveillance, vaccination programs, and addiction services.
Judge McElroy determined the states had made a compelling initial case. “They make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits, so I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order,” she stated during the hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Kane objected to the restraining order but had limited time to present the administration’s case during the proceedings.
🚨🇺🇸 JUDGE BLOCKS $11B IN HEALTH FUNDING CUTS
A federal judge in Rhode Island said she will temporarily block the Trump administration from cutting $11 billion in public health funds.
The cuts, mostly tied to COVID-19, mental health, and substance abuse efforts, were challenged… https://t.co/JJQyljWctm pic.twitter.com/GADC438buJ
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 4, 2025
Administration Justifies Cuts as Pandemic Recedes
The Trump administration defended its decision to withdraw the funding by citing the diminished threat from COVID-19. In court documents, the administration argued: “Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.” The funding had been allocated during the previous administration to help states build public health infrastructure and respond to pandemic-related needs. Many states had planned to use the funds over several years for broader public health improvements.
“This massive and egregiously irresponsible cut of public health funding should put everyone on high alert to the depths this Administration is willing to go,” wrote Rhode Island’s Attorney General Peter Neronha.
The legal battle represents one of several challenges facing the Trump administration as it seeks to implement policy changes across multiple fronts. The president and his allies have previously criticized judicial obstacles to his agenda, while the administration has sought to streamline government spending in several areas.
States Report Significant Disruptions
Public health departments across the country reported immediate impacts from the funding cuts before the judge’s intervention. Several states had already begun laying off staff, with Arizona reporting disruptions to its disease surveillance system. North Carolina and California anticipated significant financial losses, while Pennsylvania highlighted threats to elderly care and child immunization programs. Without intervention, many states claimed key public health infrastructure would have been dismantled.
“As a result of taking the Administration to court, these dollars will now start flowing again,” wrote Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.
New York Attorney General Letitia James pledged to continue pursuing the lawsuit despite the temporary victory. “We’re going to continue our lawsuit and fight to ensure states can provide the medical services Americans need,” she said following the judge’s decision. The states involved include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.
The Department of Health and Human Services has not yet issued a formal response to the court’s decision. The temporary restraining order will remain in effect while the lawsuit progresses through the legal system, ensuring the continuation of funding for critical public health programs across the affected states.
Sources:
- Federal judge temporarily blocks $11 billion in Trump administration’s cuts to public health funding – CBS News
- US judge blocks $11 billion Trump administration health funding cut for now | Reuters
- Federal judge says she will temporarily block billions in health funding cuts to states | AP News
