Trump-appointed judge orders Trump admin to ‘turn the funding spigots back on’

Tech Crunch - Apr 16th, 2025

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to release funds that were authorized by Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, appointed by Trump, ruled that the administration's use of executive orders to withhold these funds from various agencies was unjustified. The ruling directly impacts agencies like the EPA, which is being sued by the Childhood Lead Action Project over a $500,000 grant. This is part of a broader legal challenge involving multiple federal agencies and plaintiffs who argue that the administration has overstepped its authority.

The decision underscores the tension between the executive branch and the judiciary over the scope of presidential power. Judge McElroy emphasized that while the President can pursue his policy agenda, there are legal boundaries to how this can be achieved, especially when it involves bypassing Congress-approved legislation. The ruling highlights ongoing disputes about the separation of powers and administrative procedure, setting a precedent for how future administrations might approach similar situations. The case is separate from another dispute where the administration attempted to freeze funds already in nonprofits' accounts, which was also blocked by a federal judge.

Congress Trump Administration Inflation Reduction Act Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Executive Orders Federal Agencies Epa Mary Mc Elroy Childhood Lead Action Project

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and largely accurate account of a significant legal challenge to the Trump administration's handling of Congressionally authorized funds. It effectively highlights the judiciary's role in checking executive power and raises important questions about the separation of powers. However, the article could benefit from greater balance by including perspectives from the Trump administration and more detailed sourcing for its claims. While the story is timely and of high public interest, its engagement potential is somewhat limited by the technical nature of the legal issues involved. Overall, the article succeeds in informing readers about an important legal development, but it could enhance its impact with broader perspective inclusion and deeper sourcing.

Accuracy

The article presents a largely accurate account of the federal judge's ruling against the Trump administration's withholding of funds authorized by Congress. The claims about Judge Mary McElroy's order and her statements regarding the administration's actions are supported by multiple sources. However, while the article accurately attributes the judge's quotes and the overarching legal conflict, it lacks specific details about the executive orders in question and the precise legal arguments made by the Trump administration. Additionally, the story mentions other related legal cases, like the Citibank fund freeze, but does not provide detailed source references for these claims, which could benefit from further verification.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the legal and judicial perspectives challenging the Trump administration's actions, providing substantial coverage of Judge McElroy’s ruling and the plaintiffs' positions. However, it does not equally represent the Trump administration's rationale or legal arguments for withholding the funds. Including perspectives or statements from administration officials could have provided a more balanced view of the issue. The story could also explore potential justifications or counterarguments from those supporting the administration's approach, thus offering a fuller picture of the controversy.

Clarity

The article is generally well-written, with a clear and logical structure that guides the reader through the legal conflict and the judge's ruling. The language is straightforward, making the complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the legal terms and processes involved, which would enhance reader comprehension. Additionally, a clearer distinction between the primary case and the related Citibank case would prevent potential confusion.

Source quality

The article cites a federal judge's ruling, which is a credible and authoritative source for the legal proceedings described. However, it lacks direct quotes from other involved parties, such as representatives from the Trump administration or the plaintiffs in the case. While the judge's statements are well-documented, the absence of a broader range of sources limits the depth of the reporting. Including insights from legal experts or those directly involved in the case would enhance the article's credibility and provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the judge's ruling and the legal context, but it lacks transparency regarding the sources of some claims, particularly those related to the Trump administration's specific actions and justifications. The methodology behind the article's assertions is not fully explained, and there is little disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases. Greater transparency in sourcing and a clearer explanation of the legal procedures involved would improve the article's reliability.