Which federal programs were frozen by the Trump administration in January 2026 and what courts have ruled about each action?
Executive summary
The Trump administration in January 2026 froze multiple federal programs: a targeted pause on roughly $10 billion in child-care, cash-assistance and social-services grants to five Democratic-led states, the cancellation of approximately $8 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) energy grants, broader pauses that touched FEMA and other federal disbursements via an Office of Management and Budget memorandum, and efforts to end Family Reunification Parole; courts around the country have repeatedly blocked or limited those actions while litigation proceeds [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Judges in New York, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia (and individual district judges such as Arun Subramanian and John J. McConnell Jr.) have issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions restoring or protecting some funding and programs; separate judges have found particular actions unlawful, and those rulings are being litigated on appeal [6] [7] [3] [4] [5].
1. Child-care and social-services freeze: what was cut and why courts stepped in
On Jan. 7–9, 2026, the administration announced it was pausing roughly $10 billion in federal child-care, cash-assistance and related social-services funding for five Democratic-led states, citing “serious concerns about widespread fraud” in state-administered programs as the rationale for the targeted freezes (HHS statement summarized) [8] [1]. Within days, state plaintiffs sued and federal judges — including a judge in Manhattan who granted a temporary block and District Judge Arun Subramanian, who issued orders to protect the status quo — halted the freezes pending litigation, finding that plaintiffs had shown likely irreparable harm and that the freezes could be unlawful or arbitrary while the cases proceed [2] [6] [1]. The administration frames the action as fraud-prevention and rule-rollback (HHS statement), while states and legal coalitions contend the moves are unlawful seizures of congressionally appropriated funds and politically selective [8] [6].
2. Energy grants cancellation: an equal‑protection finding from the bench
Separately, the DOE’s cancellation of roughly $8 billion in energy grants became the subject of a constitutional ruling after challengers alleged the terminations targeted recipients in Democratic-leaning states; a federal judge concluded the cancellations lacked a plausible rational connection to energy policy and that political geography was a driving factor, ordering restoration of at least seven grants identified in the opinion [3]. That court rejected the government’s argument that funding decisions are insulated from equal‑protection scrutiny and emphasized defendants’ own stipulation that political identity figured into the selection of terminated grants, a factual finding that underpins the constitutional holding [3]. The administration can appeal Mehta’s decision to a higher court, and the ruling leaves open whether broader aspects of the DOE policy will survive appellate review [3].
3. Broader freezes, FEMA and the mosaic of injunctions across district courts
Beyond program-specific actions, the administration issued an array of directives in late January — including an OMB memorandum described by state attorneys general as pausing trillions in federal disbursements — that prompted multiple courts to enjoin parts of the effort and to order evidence that frozen funds (such as FEMA disbursements) be released [4]. Judges in Rhode Island and other districts granted preliminary injunctions, with Judge John J. McConnell Jr. explicitly finding that the Executive had overstepped by withholding congressionally appropriated funds, and ordered production of proof that affected FEMA funds had been restored [7] [4]. Litigation remains fragmented — district courts are issuing overlapping but not always identical orders — and the Supreme Court’s emergency dockets and recent curbs on nationwide injunctions create uncertainty about how or whether stays or broader relief will be applied as appeals move up the ladder [9] [7].
4. Immigration parole and other individual program fights
The administration also moved to end Family Reunification Parole, a program providing temporary protections to more than 10,000 relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents; a federal judge signaled she will temporarily block that attempt, preserving the program while the court considers plaintiffs’ claims [5]. That injunction mirrors the pattern seen across other program fights: the government asserts statutory authority or policy reasons, while judges weigh statutory text, administrative procedure and constitutional limits, frequently erring on the side of preserving existing benefits during litigation [5] [7].
Conclusion: January’s enforcement actions were wide-ranging — child care/social services, energy grants, FEMA and other federal disbursements, and immigration parole — and courts have largely acted to pause or roll back the administration’s freezes in multiple fora, finding plausible legal and constitutional challenges that require fuller adjudication; appeals and potential Supreme Court review mean the disputes are not resolved, only temporarily reshaped by successive judicial orders [1] [3] [7] [5].