A federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump-era plan to slash over $11 billion in pandemic-related public health funding, siding with 23 states that argued the cuts would endanger vital health services.
AT A GLANCE
- A Trump administration move to cut $11B in health funds has been paused by a federal court.
- 23 states and D.C. sued, arguing the funds are still essential for disease control and public health infrastructure.
- U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a temporary restraining order halting the cuts.
- The funding supports vaccine access, disease monitoring, and mental health services.
- Health departments had already begun scaling back services due to the funding freeze.
Judge Sides With States in High-Stakes Funding Battle
A sweeping attempt by the Trump administration to end over $11 billion in public health funding tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been blocked—at least for now—by U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy. Her ruling halts the cuts and lends weight to a multi-state coalition’s argument that the funds remain critical despite the official end of the public health emergency.
The administration’s justification, as reported by CBS News, was that these grants and cooperative agreements had outlived their purpose now that the pandemic was no longer classified as a national emergency. However, the coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia argued in court that the funding was still crucial for continuing programs that safeguard public health.
Key States Push Back Against “Irresponsible” Defunding
The challenge, led by states including California, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, portrayed the abrupt cutoff as reckless. In a statement shared with the Associated Press, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha called the cuts “massive and egregiously irresponsible,” warning that they jeopardized disease surveillance, vaccine distribution, and addiction treatment programs.
Judge McElroy, a Trump appointee herself, granted the restraining order after the states demonstrated a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits. “They make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits,” she stated in court, as reported by the Associated Press.
Watch CBS News coverage of the judge’s ruling.
Health Officials Warn of Program Collapse
The temporary freeze on funding had already forced some state health departments to scale back or terminate critical programs. In Arizona, for instance, efforts to monitor infectious disease outbreaks were curtailed. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro applauded the court’s decision, stating that “these dollars will now start flowing again.”
The strain on local agencies highlights how intertwined federal pandemic-era support has become with broader health infrastructure. From staffing to software systems, much of the public health response apparatus still relies heavily on these federal dollars.
Ongoing Legal Clash Over Pandemic Aftermath
Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Kane, representing the federal government, faced tight deadlines to mount a defense during the initial hearing. Meanwhile, state attorneys general remain united in their commitment to defend the funding. “We’re going to continue our lawsuit and fight to ensure states can provide the medical services Americans need,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
As the case moves forward, it underscores a critical tension between federal administrative authority and the states’ ongoing health needs. While the administration maintains that continued pandemic-era spending is unnecessary, the states argue that the long tail of COVID-19 has left them reliant on these resources to address both lingering and emerging public health challenges.
Read more from Reuters on the legal battle and its national implications.
