In a surprising legal twist, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to cut $11 billion in public health grants left over from the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling comes after a lawsuit filed by 23 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia seeking to keep the funds flowing, even though the declared public health emergency officially ended more than a year ago.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, issued the temporary restraining order in Rhode Island on Wednesday. She said the coalition of states made “a strong case” that they would likely succeed on the merits, justifying a freeze on the administration’s decision until a full hearing can be conducted.

“The plaintiffs make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits, so I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order,” said McElroy in her ruling.

The Trump administration, through the Department of Health and Human Services, argued that the funds — originally appropriated to respond to the pandemic — are no longer necessary and should be redirected or allowed to expire. Officials pointed to the Biden-era declarations that the pandemic emergency had concluded and noted that many of the programs being funded were never meant to be permanent.

But Democratic governors were quick to frame the cuts as an attack on essential services and public health infrastructure. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro celebrated the decision, claiming a significant victory for his state and vowing to continue fighting the cuts in court.

“We just won in court to stop the Trump administration’s illegal cuts of more than half a billion dollars in public health grants owed to Pennsylvania,” Shapiro posted on social media. “These dollars have been committed to us for critical priorities like mitigating HPAI [avian flu] and measles, providing long-term care for older adults, and ensuring access to immunizations for children.”

Shapiro added that the administration’s attempt to claw back the funds was a betrayal of commitments made during the pandemic, and said he would fight to make the freeze permanent. “I’ll keep standing up to defend Pennsylvania taxpayers, permanently reverse these unlawful cuts, and hold the federal government to the commitments it has made to our Commonwealth,” he said.

Critics of the ruling point out that the pandemic-era spending spree already bloated state budgets and that many of these “public health” grants have devolved into slush funds for unrelated progressive pet projects. The Trump administration maintains that the funding was intended for emergency response only, not to be used as a permanent welfare stream for state bureaucracies.

It’s also the latest in a long string of judicial hurdles that have tripped up Trump’s aggressive post-pandemic rollback agenda. From immigration to environmental regulations, the administration has faced stiff resistance in the courts — often from judges who were appointed by Democrats. But the McElroy decision underscores the broader trend: even Trump-appointed judges aren’t guaranteed allies, particularly in cases involving states’ access to federal funds.

Trump and his allies have blasted the judiciary for what they view as partisan interference in executive branch decisions. The former president has previously argued for curbing the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions and accused elements of the judiciary of playing politics.

However, not all on the right agree with attempts to discipline or remove judges based on their decisions. In a rare public statement, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to take a swipe at GOP lawmakers who have suggested impeachment for judges who block conservative policies.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts wrote.

The ruling marks yet another chapter in the ongoing tug-of-war between red-state fiscal restraint and blue-state dependency on federal largesse. Whether the $11 billion ultimately gets redirected or remains locked in the hands of state health departments may depend on how higher courts — or Congress — respond in the weeks ahead.