By The Canadian Press

Judge rules Trump administration must keep funding child care subsidies in 5 states for now

Jan 23, 2026 | 9:52 AM

A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must keep federal funds flowing to child care subsidies and other social service programs in five Democratic-controlled states — at least for now.

The ruling Friday from U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick extends by two weeks a temporary one issued earlier this month that blocked the federal government from holding back the money from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. That expires Friday.

The judge said he’d decide later whether the money is to remain in place while a challenge to cutting it off works its way through the courts.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said earlier this month that it was pausing the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally, though it did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others.

The states say the move was instead intended to damage Trump’s political adversaries.

TWO & OUT

PETERS: Celebration from Iranian ex-pats speaks louder than our skepticism of Trump

Mar 06, 2026

LOOPED IN

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: March 5, 2026

Mar 05, 2026

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: Supporting British Columbians through the Strategic Investment Fund

Mar 05, 2026

A judge previously gave the states a reprieve to the administration’s plan to halt funding for the states unless they provide information on the beneficiaries of some programs, including names and Social Security numbers. The temporary restraining order was set to expire Friday.

Around the same time as the actions aimed at the five states, the administration put up hurdles to Minnesota for even more federal dollars. It also began requesting all states to explain how they’re using money in the child care program.

The programs are intended to help low-income families

The programs are the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for 1.3 million children from low-income families nationwide; the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, a smaller fund that provides money for a variety of programs. The states say that they receive a total of more more than $10 billion a year from those programs — and that the programs are essential for low-income and vulnerable families.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent letters to the states on Jan. 5 and 6 telling them they would be placed on “restricted drawdown” of program money until the states provided more information.

For TANF and the Social Service Block Grant, the request required the states to submit the data, including personal information of recipients beginning in 2022, with a deadline of Jan. 20.

States call the action ‘unlawful many times over’

In court papers last week, the states say what they describe as a funding freeze does not follow the law.

They say Congress created laws about how the administration can identify noncompliance or fraud by recipients of the money — and that the federal government hasn’t used that process.

They also say it’s improper to freeze funding broadly because of potential fraud and that producing the data the government called for is an “impossible demand on an impossible timeline.”

The administration says it’s not a freeze

In a court filing this week, the administration objected to the states describing the action as a “funding freeze,” even though the headline on the Department of Health and Human Services announcement was: “HHS Freezes Child Care and Family Assistance Grants in Five States for Fraud Concerns.”

Federal government lawyers said the states could get the money going forward if they provide the requested information and the federal government finds them to be in compliance with anti-fraud measures.

The administration also notes that it has continued to provide funding to the states, not pointing out that a court ordered it to do so.

Geoff Mulvihill, The Associated Press