Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Holding Billions in Food Aid Funds 'Hostage to Its Political Agenda'

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked an attempt by the US Department of Agriculture to force state governments to comply with President Donald Trump's positions on gender and immigration or lose out on billions of dollars in funding, including for food assistance.

The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 20 Democrat-led states sued the department and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March, arguing that "USDA has now thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by Congress and the states that rely on them, threatening critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities."

Specifically, the Trump administration imposed "a vague set of funding conditions relating to USDA's purported anti-discrimination 'policies,' 'gender ideology,' 'fair athletic opportunities' for women and girls, and immigration," without specifying the policies or even confirming "that certification is limited to currently existing policies," says the complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts.

The March filing also makes the case that "even if USDA went back and cured its vagueness problem and conducted a reasoned analysis before taking final agency action, the challenged conditions would still be unlawful."

While US District Judge Myong Joun has not explicitly agreed, the appointee of former President Joe Biden granted a preliminary injunction sought by the AGs and said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.

Welcoming the judge's unexplained decision on social media, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield highlighted that the move safeguards funding for school lunches, emergency aid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," Rayfield said. "The court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to hold school lunches, WIC, and SNAP hostage to its political agenda. These are lifelines for 86,000 Oregon kids, working families, seniors, and rural communities—and they will remain protected."

New York Attorney General Letitia James also celebrated that "we won a court order protecting billions of dollars in USDA funding as our lawsuit continues," and pledged that "my office will keep fighting to protect New Yorkers and stop the federal government from punishing our state for refusing to bend."

The other states involved in the case are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Collectively, according to the complaint, "'plaintiff states receive over $74 billion annually in funding from USDA."

The judge's decision came on the heels of four Democrats in the US House of Representatives voting with Republicans to approve legislation that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants."

Already, since congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, at least hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost federal food assistance. Last month, Trump's USDA chief suggested that some of them were receiving SNAP benefits fraudulently—without offering evidence—while others are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."

Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, responded that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."