Trump Administration Child Care Funds Blocked by Judge
Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Freeze of $10 Billion in Child Care Funds
Table of Contents
A federal judge in New York temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze approximately $10 billion in child care funding allocated to five states with Democratic leadership: California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. The ruling, issued Friday, January 10, 2026, followed a lawsuit filed by the states challenging the administration’s actions.
The Dispute with the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
the dispute began earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notified officials in the five states that it would freeze federal funds due to alleged concerns about fraud. The administration also requested considerable amounts of administrative data from the states.
The HHS action specifically targeted funds distributed through the Child care and Advancement Fund (CCDF), a federal program designed to help low-income families afford child care. The administration claimed irregularities in the states’ reporting of data related to eligibility and program participation.
Example: On January 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the state’s lawsuit against the Trump administration, stating the funding freeze was “unlawful and jeopardizes access to affordable child care for hundreds of thousands of families.” California Attorney General Press Release
The states’ legal Challenge
The states collectively filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday, January 9, 2026, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the funding freeze. The lawsuit argued that the administration’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and violated the administrative Procedure Act.
the states argued that the HHS’s demands for data were overly broad and burdensome, and that the funding freeze was imposed without due process.They also contended that the administration had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claims of widespread fraud.
Evidence: The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump,case number 26-cv-00123,specifically alleges that the HHS action ”lacks a rational connection to any legitimate governmental interest” and is “motivated by political considerations.” CourtListener – California et al. v. Trump
The Court’s Ruling and Potential Impact
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the states’ request for a temporary restraining order, effectively blocking the funding freeze pending further legal proceedings. The judge found that the states had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the funding were frozen.
The ruling prevents the HHS from withholding funds while the lawsuit is ongoing. The case is expected to proceed to a preliminary injunction hearing, where the judge will determine whether to issue a longer-term injunction preventing the funding freeze.
Impact: The $10 billion in funding supports child care for an estimated 1.6 million children across the five states. A prolonged funding freeze would have significantly disrupted access to affordable child care for working families. Administration for Children and Families – Child Care and Development Fund