A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the Trump administration from freezing over $10 billion in federal funding intended for low-income families in five states, including Minnesota. The decision comes after a lawsuit was filed by Attorney General Ellison and attorneys general from California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York.
The Trump administration had planned to halt funding for programs such as the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and Social Services Block Grants (SSBG). These programs provide support for childcare, help families pay for essentials like gas, groceries, and rent, and fund foster care services.
Attorney General Ellison said, “I’m pleased we were able to secure emergency relief preventing the Trump Administration from moving ahead with an immediate action that could devastate childcare services across Minnesota. Without this relief, parents or caregivers in poor families may have been forced to choose between paying the bills by going to work and staying home to provide childcare during their working hours. Minnesota’s childcare system generally could have suffered immensely without this funding. Childcare centers may have been forced to lay off staff or even close their doors entirely, which would harm even families that don’t benefit directly from the programs Trump tried to freeze. This temporary pause to Trump’s latest assault on Minnesota is great news, and my team and I will be in court working to permanently block Trump’s illegal and deeply cruel actions.”
In Minnesota, these funds are managed by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. The CCDF helps low-income parents who are working or attending school pay for necessary childcare. TANF provides assistance so families can afford basic needs such as housing and food. SSBG offers flexible support for child welfare services at both state and county levels.
The coalition of attorneys general argues that there is no valid reason given by the administration for withholding these funds. They claim that concerns about “potential” fraud are being used as a pretext to cut programs that the administration has long opposed. The lawsuit contends that this action violates legal requirements for imposing sanctions under these programs as well as constitutional principles regarding congressional spending authority.
The restraining order will remain in effect for two weeks while the plaintiff states seek a preliminary injunction that could extend protection against the funding freeze throughout the duration of the lawsuit.
