A federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration from conditioning the release of domestic violence prevention funds on compliance with efforts to eliminate so-called “gender ideology.” The decision came on Friday when Senior U.S. District Judge William E. Smith granted a stay to a group of nonprofit plaintiffs, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in their lawsuit challenging new funding restrictions.
In January, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” directing federal agencies to cease funding programs that promote gender ideology.
As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, implemented directives in May, including restrictions on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants, barring funding for activities deemed to “inculcate or promote gender ideology.”
In June, the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and other nonprofits filed a lawsuit seeking to stop these new conditions from taking effect, arguing that the restrictions would prevent them from receiving critical funding for their work with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Judge Smith ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that without immediate relief, the Coalitions would face “real and immediate irreparable harm” from the funding conditions, which could disrupt vital services for victims. “If the Court does not grant preliminary relief, the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA,” Smith wrote.
The government argued that the dispute was contractual and should be governed by the Tucker Act of 1887, which covers claims against the federal government based on contracts. However, the judge dismissed this argument, ruling that the Coalitions were not challenging existing grant conditions but the new restrictions placed on future funding.
“The Court need not spend much time on this argument,” Smith said, rejecting the government’s defense. The judge also criticized the Department of Justice’s decision-making process, concluding that the new funding conditions were “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning they lacked sufficient justification and violated the plaintiffs’ rights. “On the present record, the Court can only conclude that the Office engaged in a wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process,” Smith explained.