Trump-Appointed Judge Stops $11B Health Cuts by Trump Admin

Man speaking at podium with American flags behind

Trump-appointed Judge Mary McElroy has temporarily blocked the president’s own administration from cutting $11 billion in public health funding previously allocated for pandemic response.

Quick Takes

23 states and Washington DC successfully sued to halt the Trump administration’s plan to cut $11 billion in public health grants
The administration had argued that pandemic-era funding was no longer necessary with COVID-19 in retreat
States claimed the funds remain essential for disease tracking, mental health services, and health infrastructure
Judge Mary McElroy, ironically a Trump appointee, determined the states would likely succeed on the merits of their case
Public health departments have already faced staff layoffs due to the announced funding cuts

Trump Administration’s Funding Cut Meets Judicial Resistance

In a significant legal development, District Judge Mary McElroy has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with $11 billion in cuts to state public health funding. The ruling comes after 23 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit claiming the administration “abruptly and arbitrarily terminated” funds on March 24 that were allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case presents an unusual situation where a Trump-appointed judge has ruled against the President’s own administration’s policy initiative, highlighting the independence of the judiciary even in politically charged circumstances.

The administration had justified the funding cuts by arguing that the pandemic’s end eliminated the need for these financial resources. According to court documents, the administration’s position was straightforward: “Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.” However, Judge McElroy found the states’ argument compelling enough to issue a temporary restraining order while the case proceeds through the courts.

🚨🇺🇸 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

States Argue Critical Health Services at Risk

The coalition of states challenging the administration’s cuts has presented evidence that the funding supports numerous ongoing public health initiatives beyond direct COVID-19 response. These include disease surveillance systems, vaccine access programs, mental health and addiction services, and critical health infrastructure improvements. Arizona’s health department specifically reported disruptions to its disease surveillance system due to the anticipated funding reduction, highlighting the immediate impact of the administration’s decision.

“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,” said U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy

The lawsuit includes states from across the political spectrum, including 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. This broad coalition suggests the funding cuts impact states regardless of their political leanings, with public health departments already facing difficult decisions about staffing and program continuity.

Real-World Consequences Already Emerging

Even before the court’s decision, the announcement of funding cuts had forced public health departments nationwide to begin scaling back operations. Some departments have already laid off staff, with North Carolina and California anticipating significant financial losses that would affect their ability to provide essential health services. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro highlighted specific programs at risk, including public health grants for elderly care and childhood immunization efforts crucial for preventing outbreaks of diseases like measles.

“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,” said Rhode Island’s Attorney General Peter Neronha.

Following the ruling, state officials expressed relief at the temporary reprieve. Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro declared, “As a result of taking the Administration to court, these dollars will now start flowing again.” New York Attorney General Letitia James vowed to “continue our lawsuit and fight to ensure states can provide the medical services Americans need.” Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services has not yet issued a formal response to the court’s decision.

Broader Political and Legal Context

This case represents part of a larger pattern of legal challenges facing the Trump administration as it implements policy changes. While President Trump and his allies have criticized judicial obstacles to his agenda, the involvement of a Trump-appointed judge in this particular ruling complicates the typical political narrative. Judge McElroy, though appointed by Trump, was originally nominated by President Obama, representing the complex nature of federal judicial appointments across administrations.

The temporary restraining order ensures funding will continue while the lawsuit proceeds through the courts. Health departments that had begun making difficult decisions about program cuts and staffing reductions now have a reprieve, but the long-term fate of these public health funds remains uncertain pending the final resolution of the case. Both sides are expected to present more detailed arguments as the legal process continues.