Obama Judge Lets Trump Pull $800M in Grants—But Blasts Decision as “Shameful”

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration can revoke over $800 million in crime-reduction grants, despite criticizing the decision’s impact on communities. The court said it had no legal basis to intervene, shutting down a lawsuit brought by organizations affected by the funding cuts.

Key Facts:

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed a lawsuit over the Trump administration’s cancellation of $800 million in federal grants.
The Department of Justice canceled over 360 grant awards in April, citing revised priorities.
Five organizations sued, arguing the cancellations violated due process and constitutional limits on executive power.
Mehta criticized the move as “shameful” but said the court lacked jurisdiction to reverse it.
Attorneys General from at least 18 states and D.C. supported the plaintiffs through amicus briefs.

The Rest of The Story:

The ruling came after five groups filed suit to block the Trump administration’s abrupt cancellation of crime-fighting and victim-support grants.

The Department of Justice, under a shift in priorities, decided to pull the funds in April.

It aimed to redirect the money toward law enforcement support and combating violent crime and human trafficking.

The plaintiffs, backed by numerous state Attorneys General and local prosecutors, argued the move was unlawful.

They said it violated due process, confused grantees, and trampled on Congress’s exclusive authority over federal spending.

Many organizations had already begun using the funds and were forced to shut down programs, lay off staff, or cut community partnerships.

Judge Amit Mehta sided with the federal government on legal grounds, stating that the court had no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to prove any constitutional violation.

However, he made clear his personal disapproval: “Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful,” he wrote.

“It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence.”

The DOJ dismissed the suit as a routine contract dispute and argued the court had no authority to force the executive branch to fund programs it no longer supported.

A spokesperson for the department declined to comment further.

Commentary:

This ruling validates a central truth about executive power: the president is in charge of the executive branch, and with that comes the authority to make decisions—popular or not—about how resources are used.

President Trump’s administration had every right to redirect funding in line with its law-and-order agenda.

Critics may not like the cuts, but elections have consequences.

The grants in question were not guaranteed entitlements; they were subject to federal priorities, which changed under new leadership.

Reclaiming those funds for higher-impact law enforcement purposes was not only legal but arguably necessary in cities overwhelmed by violent crime.

Judge Mehta’s ruling, while correct in law, crossed a line in tone.

Federal judges are meant to interpret the Constitution, not editorialize about political decisions.

His language—calling the decision “shameful”—suggests a personal bias unbecoming of the bench.

The judiciary should maintain neutrality, not moralize from the bench.

The real shame would have been if the court had overstepped its authority to appease political sentiment.

That would have set a dangerous precedent where unelected judges micromanage executive discretion.

Mehta deserves credit for respecting the boundaries of his role, even if he made clear he didn’t like the outcome.

The law prevailed over emotion here, and that’s how it should be.

If organizations want different funding decisions, the proper route is through Congress or the next election—not the courts.

This also proves that President Trump’s instinct to reassess Obama-era grant programs was justified.

Many of those funds were being funneled into questionable projects under the guise of community reform.

Redirecting them toward tangible crime-fighting efforts is a smart and lawful shift.

The Bottom Line:

President Trump had the legal authority to cancel over \$800 million in grants, and the court upheld that decision, despite the judge’s personal objection.

The ruling confirms that executive power includes the discretion to reshape funding in pursuit of new national priorities.

While the judge’s comments were inappropriate, the law was followed—and the administration’s authority reaffirmed.