A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from cutting off federal grants to cities that use diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. U.S. District Judge William Orrick, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that federal grants, which fund various public services, are not directly tied to the administration's efforts to end DEI initiatives at the local level.
The ruling asserts that the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold federal funds from municipalities based on their DEI policies. The administration had argued that such policies constitute discriminatory practices and that federal funding should not support them. However, Orrick stated that Congress, not the president, holds the authority to control federal spending. He also noted that the grants in question are allocated to federal agencies, which then have discretion over program funding.
Critics of the ruling contend that money is fungible, meaning federal funds could indirectly support DEI initiatives by freeing up local government funds for other purposes. The argument is that if a city receives federal money for services like fire safety, it can then reallocate its own budget to prioritize DEI programs. This perspective suggests that the president has a duty to prevent federal money from promoting what is described as racism and sexism.
This is not the first time Judge Orrick has ruled against the Trump administration on funding issues. In the early years of Trump's presidency, Orrick blocked efforts to cut off funding to so-called "sanctuary" cities. That decision also centered on the principle of federal control over funding and the limits of executive authority in dictating local policies.
The context of DEI policies in California has also been highlighted, with the state government under Governor Gavin Newsom described as heavily invested in DEI initiatives. Newsom's administration has reportedly established DEI agencies and personnel, and signed legislation to create a committee on reparations for slavery, despite California entering the Union as a free state. Critics argue that these policies create division and bureaucracy, and that leaders should prioritize more mainstream approaches to governance.