Judge McConnell Ruled in April 2025 That FEMA's Grant Pause Violated His Order; States Filed a New FEMA Enforcement Motion in October 2026
The ruling is 18 months old. The live dispute now is a separate Rhode Island case over immigration conditions on FEMA's fiscal 2026 grants.
An 18-month-old ruling and a motion filed this month
On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who sits in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that FEMA had violated his own court order[1][2]. That order was a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction freezes a policy while the lawsuit plays out. His injunction blocked the Trump administration's broad freeze on federal grants[1].
The ruling isn't new, even though it can look that way. We found no source showing a McConnell FEMA ruling in October 2026. What did happen this month is a different filing in a different case, and the two are easy to confuse.
What McConnell found in 2025
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia brought the case. They said FEMA had held up their payments since early February 2025 for a "manual review" with no clear end date[1]. Hawaii offered one example. It said FEMA had not acted on a roughly $6 million request to rebuild after the 2023 Maui wildfires[3].
The Justice Department said the review "has nothing to do with the OMB Directive, and is expressly not a pause or freeze on funding"[3]. In its view, an agency has a duty to check how federal money is spent before it pays it out. The administration also tied the review to Secretary Kristi Noem's memos. Those memos say taxpayer money shouldn't fund jurisdictions that block federal immigration enforcement[4].
McConnell, an Obama appointee, disagreed. He wrote that "FEMA's manual review process violates the Court's preliminary injunction order"[4]. He called his order "clear" and said nothing stopped FEMA from following it. He wrote that the evidence "strongly suggests" the review was "covertly" tied to the administration's immigration-related executive order[1][5]. He ordered FEMA to stop the review at once[1][4].
A DHS official called the ruling the work of an "activist judge." The same official said FEMA would "continue to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used wisely"[1].
The live fight is in a separate case
The current dispute is a different case before a different judge. It is called Illinois v. FEMA, and Judge William Smith has it. In September 2025, Smith blocked immigration-related conditions on FEMA grants. The ruling said FEMA can't require states to help with immigration enforcement to get the money[10]. In October 2025, the court found the administration had violated that order[9].
In early October 2026, a coalition of states filed a new motion to enforce those orders. They say FEMA put nearly identical conditions on its fiscal 2026 grants. The motion covers nine programs and nearly $1 billion[7][8]. As of October 11, 2026, we found no ruling on it.
Al Jazeera's October 2025 story is about the Smith case, not the McConnell freeze. Readers can mix the two up easily[9].
Why neither side is backing down
Underneath both cases sit two claims about who controls the money. Congress approves FEMA grant funds. The states argue that the executive branch can't hold that money back to push its own policy goals[7]. They also say an agency that loses in court shouldn't restart the same freeze under a new name, whether "manual review" or new "conditions." If it could, they say, court orders would mean little[1][7].
The administration sees it differently. It says it has its own lawful authority to review and condition grants, and that a review isn't a freeze[3][4]. It also has a policy aim. It wants to use grants to encourage state and local cooperation on immigration, and it is trying to reshape FEMA itself[4][14].
Courts can only hold an agency to its rulings through motions to enforce. Each finding of noncompliance raises the stakes for both sides[1][9]. Other judges have ruled against FEMA recently. In September 2026, one blocked a plan to tie counterterrorism funds to election rules. Another ruled illegal a plan to cut the agency's workforce in half[13][14].
What's at stake on the ground
Local emergency managers mostly don't take a side in the legal fight. They want money they were already promised, on a predictable schedule[3]. The grants pay for preparedness, counterterrorism and recovery. They fund state and local emergency staff and projects[3][12].
In 2025, delays held up tens of millions of dollars. Late payments can stall rebuilding work and emergency staffing[3]. In fiscal 2026, nearly $1 billion depends on whether states accept the immigration conditions[7]. The states' filing says they can't accept conditions on "hundreds of millions" in Homeland Security funding.
One more point on the headlines: some versions of this story add a hurricane-recovery angle. We found no support for that link. The money at issue in April 2025 was mostly regular FEMA grants.
How the coverage split
Reuters mostly reported the ruling straight. It noted that McConnell is an Obama appointee and that the plaintiffs are Democratic attorneys general[1]. The Hill's headline was neutral. It gave the Justice Department's rebuttal space, though its web address uses a "blue states" frame[3].
Courthouse News led with "slammed" and the judge's word "covertly." That makes a legal finding read like a political rebuke[5]. Fox News focused on the judge. Its web address calls him the judge "targeted [by] GOP impeachment" and says he "deals blow to Trump's FEMA objectives." Its headline softened "violated" to "orders unpause"[6].
Overseas, India's StratNews Global ran a near-wire rewrite with no added angle[11]. McConnell has since become a target of Republican impeachment efforts[6].
The October 2026 motion is the open question. Judge Smith hasn't ruled on whether the fiscal 2026 conditions break his earlier orders. The answer decides whether nearly $1 billion reaches the states.
Summary
The ruling in this story is not new. On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that FEMA had violated his earlier injunction[1][2]. That injunction blocked the Trump administration's broad freeze on federal grants. He found that FEMA's 'manual review' of grant payments to states amounted to a freeze[1][4]. He sided with Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. They said payments had been held up since early February 2025 with no end date[1].
The story's dek links the ruling to growing hurricane recovery needs. We found no support for that link. The money at issue in April 2025 was mostly regular FEMA grants. Hawaii's example was a roughly $6 million request to rebuild after the 2023 Maui wildfires[3].
The current fight is a separate case before a different judge. In Illinois v. FEMA, Judge William Smith ruled in 2025 that FEMA cannot require states to help with immigration enforcement to get grants[10][9]. In October 2026, the states asked the court to enforce those orders again. They say FEMA put nearly identical conditions on its fiscal 2026 grants, putting nearly $1 billion at risk[7][8]. As of October 11, 2026, we found no ruling on that motion.
The main dispute in both cases is the same. The states say the administration is using paperwork steps to get around court orders. The government says it has its own lawful authority to review and condition grants. It says a review is not a freeze[3][4].
The Event
On April 4, 2025, Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the states' motion to enforce his preliminary injunction[2][15]. A preliminary injunction is a court order that freezes a policy while the lawsuit goes on. He ordered FEMA, part of the Department of Homeland Security, to stop its manual review process at once and to follow the order[1][4]. In early October 2026, a coalition of states filed a motion in a separate case, Illinois v. FEMA. It asks the court to block immigration-cooperation conditions on FEMA's FY2026 grants[7][8].
Undisputed Facts
- Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee, ruled on April 4, 2025 that FEMA's manual review of grant payments violated his preliminary injunction[1][2].
- The plaintiffs were Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia[1].
- The states said FEMA had held up payments since early February 2025 for a manual review with no clear end date[1].
- The Justice Department argued that the review 'has nothing to do with the OMB Directive, and is expressly not a pause or freeze on funding'[3].
- Hawaii said FEMA had not acted on a roughly $6 million request to rebuild after the 2023 Maui wildfires[3].
- In a separate case, Judge William Smith blocked immigration-related conditions on FEMA grants in September 2025[10]. In October 2025, a court found the administration had violated that order[9].
- In October 2026, states asked the court to enforce the 2025 orders against FY2026 grant conditions covering nearly $1 billion[7][8].
- In September 2026, other federal judges ruled against FEMA on conditions tying counterterrorism funds to election rules and on a plan to cut its workforce in half[13][14].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Power of the purse
- Congress approves FEMA grant money. The administration wants to use the timing of payments and conditions on grants to push its own policies, especially on immigration. States want the money as Congress approved it[4][7].
- Enforcing court orders
- District courts can only hold agencies to their rulings through motions to enforce. Repeated findings that the government did not comply raise the stakes on both sides[1][9].
- FEMA's shrinking capacity
- Court fights over workforce cuts and grant rules show a deliberate effort to reshape FEMA. That puts pressure on states that depend on its money[14][13].
Material realityFEMA's preparedness, counterterrorism and recovery grants fund state and local emergency staff and projects. In 2025, delays held up tens of millions of dollars, including Hawaii's roughly $6 million Maui request[3]. In FY2026, nearly $1 billion depends on whether states accept immigration-cooperation conditions[7]. The April 2025 McConnell ruling is settled history. The FY2026 conditions dispute is unresolved as of October 11, 2026[7][8].
Narrative as a weaponDemocratic AGs and parts of the press frame these cases as defiance of the courts. They highlight words like 'covertly' and the repeated findings of noncompliance. The administration and right-leaning outlets frame them as ordinary oversight of grants and as overreach by activist judges. Fox News put the judge's impeachment targeting up front. Recycling the April 2025 McConnell headline in October 2026, with a hurricane angle added, would make an old ruling look like a new response to a current disaster. Readers should keep apart the McConnell freeze case (New York v. Trump) and the Smith immigration-conditions case (Illinois v. FEMA).
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asCongress already approved this money. The executive branch cannot hold it back to push its own policy goals[7]. When an agency loses in court, it should not restart the same freeze under a new name like 'manual review' or new 'conditions.' Courts mean little if they can be gotten around that way[1][7]. States also argue that disaster and preparedness money needs to be steady. Planning, staffing and rebuilding depend on knowing the money will arrive[3].
WhyKeep federal money flowing to state emergency agencies and protect state policies that limit cooperation with immigration agents[7][15].
Impact on themTheir states say they were hit by delayed payments in 2025 and face nearly $1 billion in FY2026 grants if the conditions stand[3][7].
Frames it asAgencies have a duty to check how federal money is spent before paying it out. The Justice Department argued the review 'has nothing to do with the OMB Directive, and is expressly not a pause or freeze on funding'[3]. A DHS official called the April 2025 ruling the work of an 'activist judge' and said FEMA would 'continue to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used wisely'[1]. The administration ties the review to Secretary Kristi Noem's memos, which say taxpayer money should not fund jurisdictions that block federal immigration enforcement[4].
WhyUse federal grants to encourage state and local cooperation on immigration, reshape FEMA, and defend broad executive control over spending[4][14].
Impact on themCourts have repeatedly found it out of compliance or acting unlawfully, which limits its use of grant conditions as a policy tool[9][13]. It continues to make these arguments in new grant cycles[7].
Frames it asTheir rulings say the issue is whether court orders are obeyed. McConnell wrote that his order was 'clear,' that nothing stopped FEMA from following it, and that evidence 'strongly suggests' the review was 'covertly' tied to the administration's immigration-related executive order[1][5].
WhyMake sure their orders mean something while the cases move through the courts[4].
Impact on themMcConnell became a target of Republican impeachment efforts, a fact Fox News put in its framing of the story[6].
Frames it asThey mostly don't take a side in the legal fight. Their concern is getting money they were already promised for preparedness and rebuilding, such as Maui's wildfire recovery[3][12].
WhyGet money on a predictable schedule[3].
Impact on themDelays in grant payments can stall rebuilding projects and emergency staffing[3].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuters | U.S./international wire, center | 2 | Trump administration violated court order by pausing FEMA grants, judge rules | Mostly straight. It notes McConnell is an Obama appointee and that the plaintiffs are Democratic AGs, labeling both sides' politics. |
| StratNews Global | Indian, independent strategic-affairs site | 2 | Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order On FEMA Grants | A near-wire rewrite that adds no overseas angle and no government rebuttal beyond the wire. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | Judge finds FEMA withholding grants in violation of court order | Neutral headline, but the URL uses a 'blue states' frame. It gives the DOJ's rebuttal space. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | US court rules Trump violated order by placing conditions on FEMA grants (October 2025, Smith case) | Factual on its own case. Readers can easily mix it up with the McConnell freeze ruling. |
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center (legal trade wire) | 5 | Trump slammed for 'covertly' withholding FEMA funds from blue states | 'Slammed' and the judge's word 'covertly' in the headline make a legal finding read like a political rebuke. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 6 | Federal judge orders FEMA unpause federal funds (URL: 'judge targeted [by] GOP impeachment deals blow [to] Trump's FEMA objectives') | Brings up the judge's impeachment targeting and frames the ruling as a 'blow' to Trump. The word 'violated' is softened to 'orders unpause.' |
References
- Trump administration violated court order by pausing FEMA grants, judge rules — Reuters (via Yahoo News) · International wire service, commercially owned (Thomson Reuters), center
- Federal judge in Rhode Island finds FEMA violated previous order halting funding freeze — WJAR Turn to 10 · Providence local TV station owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group (right-leaning corporate owner); local news desk
- Judge finds FEMA withholding grants in violation of court order — The Hill · D.C. political outlet owned by Nexstar Media; center
- Memorandum and Order (New York v. Trump, D.R.I.) — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island · Primary source: federal court record
- Trump slammed for 'covertly' withholding FEMA funds from blue states — Courthouse News Service · Subscription-funded legal news wire; center, litigation-focused
- Federal judge orders FEMA unpause federal funds — Fox News · U.S. right; owned by Fox Corporation
- States say Trump continues to flout court orders by tying FEMA funding to ICE cooperation — Courthouse News Service · Subscription-funded legal news wire; center, litigation-focused
- States' motion to enforce, Illinois v. FEMA (D.R.I., October 2026) — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (via Courthouse News) · Primary source: plaintiff states' court filing (an advocacy document by one party)
- US court rules Trump violated order by placing conditions on FEMA grants — Al Jazeera · Funded by the Qatari state
- Federal judge strikes down Trump edict tying federal disaster aid to immigration — Maryland Matters · Nonprofit state news outlet in the States Newsroom network, which is funded largely by progressive-leaning donors
- Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order On FEMA Grants — StratNews Global · Indian privately owned strategic-affairs outlet
- RI judge rules FEMA's grant review process violates injunction blocking Trump's funding freeze — The Brown Daily Herald · Independent student newspaper at Brown University
- Feds can't withhold counterterrorism funds from states to force election admin changes, judge rules — CNBC · U.S. business news; owned by Versant, the cable spin-off from Comcast/NBCUniversal; center
- Trump's plan to halve FEMA workforce illegal, judge rules — The Hill · D.C. political outlet owned by Nexstar Media; center
- Court Grants States' Motion to Enforce; Orders Trump Administration to Unfreeze FEMA Grants — Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General · Primary source: a plaintiff's own press release, from a Democratic AG's office