Five Democratic-led states have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a decision by the Trump administration to freeze more than $10 billion in federal funding dedicated to childcare and family assistance programs. The
legal action raises constitutional and administrative law questions over the executive branch’s authority to block congressionally approved spending.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan by California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York, asserting that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unlawfully restricted access to funds that support low-income families, working parents, and essential social services.
According to the complaint, the funding freeze affects major federal programs administered through U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Child Care and Development Fund, and several social services block grants. Together, these programs provide states with resources for childcare subsidies, employment assistance, and support services for families facing economic hardship.
States Allege Unlawful Executive Action
The states argue that the Trump administration’s decision violates federal law by overriding spending authority granted by Congress. They contend that HHS failed to provide adequate justification for the freeze and did not follow required administrative procedures before blocking access to the funds.
The lawsuit names the administration of Donald Trump, alleging that the funding halt reflects an improper use of executive power rather than a lawful enforcement action. The complaint states that the freeze disrupts state budgets, threatens childcare access for millions of families, and undermines programs designed to help parents remain in the workforce.
State officials argue that Congress explicitly appropriated the funds and that the executive branch lacks authority to withhold them absent clear statutory violations. The states are seeking a court order compelling HHS to immediately restore access to the frozen funds.
Administration Cites Fraud Concerns
The Trump administration has defended the funding freeze by citing concerns about potential fraud and misuse of federal funds. HHS officials have stated that the pause is necessary to ensure taxpayer dollars are not improperly distributed, including claims that benefits may have been provided to individuals not legally eligible for assistance.
However, the lawsuit argues that the administration has not publicly produced evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to justify freezing funds across multiple states. State attorneys general say any isolated compliance issues should be addressed through audits or enforcement actions rather than broad funding suspensions that impact lawful beneficiaries.
The states also argue that the lack of transparency surrounding the decision has made it difficult for agencies and childcare providers to plan for continued operations, potentially leading to service disruptions and layoffs.
Impact on Childcare and Working Families
The funding freeze comes at a time when childcare access remains a critical issue nationwide. States rely heavily on federal childcare and family assistance funding to support working parents, particularly those in low-income households. Without access to these funds, state officials warn that families could face higher childcare costs, reduced availability of care, and interruptions to essential support services.
Governors from the plaintiff states have publicly criticized the freeze, calling it politically motivated and harmful to families who depend on stable childcare systems. Several state leaders have emphasized that childcare funding is not discretionary spending but a foundational component of workforce participation and economic stability.
Constitutional and Legal Questions
At the center of the lawsuit is a broader legal debate over separation of powers. The states argue that by blocking congressionally authorized spending, the executive branch violated constitutional limits on its authority. The complaint asserts that allowing such actions to stand would set a dangerous precedent for future administrations to unilaterally halt funding for politically disfavored programs.
Legal experts note that similar disputes over federal spending authority have previously drawn scrutiny from federal courts, particularly when executive actions conflict with clear congressional appropriations.
What Happens Next
The case now moves to federal court, where a judge will consider whether the funding freeze should be temporarily or permanently lifted. If the states prevail, the decision could reaffirm limits on executive power over federal spending and restore billions in childcare and family assistance funding.
If the administration successfully defends the freeze, it could signal
broader authority for federal agencies to withhold funds based on compliance concerns, even in the absence of formal findings.
As the legal battle unfolds, childcare providers, state agencies, and families across the affected states await clarity on the
future of funding that supports millions of Americans.
Explore high-impact legal careers shaping national policy and constitutional law. Visit
LawCrossing to discover exclusive attorney jobs in government, regulatory compliance, administrative law, and litigation updated daily for legal professionals ready to make an impact.
