Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →On January 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan temporarily stayed the Office of Management and Budget’s planned pause of federal financial assistance under Memorandum M-25-13. The order was short-term, limited in scope and not a final ruling on the policy’s legality.
What did the judge block?
The temporary administrative stay applied to grant-related payments that were due to be paused under the challenged OMB action. At the hearing, AliKhan described its immediate effect this way: “anything that was due to be paused as of 5 p.m. today to open funding on grants is stayed.”
The order addressed the proposed pause in Memorandum M-25-13; it did not block every federal funding action. The contemporaneous Stateline report said funding affected by separate executive orders was outside the stay. Uncertainty during the policy’s first-day rollout also made it difficult to establish a reliable total dollar amount for the funding at issue.
Was the freeze blocked permanently?
No. The January 28 order was an administrative stay pending a February 3 hearing, not a final decision on the merits. It temporarily held the challenged action in place for the payments within its scope while the case proceeded.
#1 Best Overall
What happened after the January 28 order?
- January 28, 2025: AliKhan issued the temporary administrative stay in a lawsuit brought by nonprofit organizations, including the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance and SAGE.
- January 29, 2025: OMB rescinded Memorandum M-25-13. The nonprofit lawsuit continued after the rescission.
- Later in the case: A preliminary injunction followed. On August 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated that preliminary injunction.
Those later steps are separate from the January 28 stay. In particular, the appellate court’s 2026 action concerned the later preliminary injunction, not the short-term administrative stay described in the original headline.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did the order mean for organizations and people awaiting payments?
For recipients whose grant-related payments were due to be paused under M-25-13, the stay temporarily prevented that pause from taking effect while the order applied. It was not a blanket assurance about all federal grants, loans or assistance: the stay’s stated boundary excluded funding affected by separate executive orders, and the rollout left uncertainty about which programs were implicated.
Rank #2
The January 28 order was therefore a narrow, time-sensitive court intervention—not a permanent guarantee that any particular payment would continue. The later procedural history should not be read as changing what the judge ordered on January 28.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
