Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Second Attempt to Terminate $1 Billion in School Mental Health Grants
The Trump administration's sweeping executive campaign to claw back federal funding from programs aligned with progressive values has suffered another major defeat in federal court. On Tuesday, July 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Department of Education's renewed attempt to terminate nearly $1 billion in school-based mental health grants1.
This ruling marks the second time in less than a year that the federal judiciary has stepped in to preserve this funding. In December 2025, Judge Evanson blocked the department's initial attempt to discontinue the grants, ordering the agency to reinstate them and base any future reviews on actual performance data and established regulatory procedures rather than political preferences—specifically, the administration's opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The Department of Education subsequently sought court permission to launch a "re-review" of the grants for termination and asked the judge for clarification. In response, a coalition of 15 states filed a new lawsuit and requested emergency injunctive relief to block the terminations.
In her 15-page opinion, Judge Evanson rejected the administration's arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the states had to wait for actual terminations to occur before bringing their challenge:
“According to the department, no court would have jurisdiction to provide injunctive relief in response to grant terminations after they occur. Thus, plaintiff states need not simply wait out the termination clock ‘in order to have their day in court.’”
Reviewing the department's administrative plans, Evanson concluded that the agency had "formulated a plan to re-review grants for termination based on unlawful reasons." She noted that the department sought to evaluate the original, already approved multi-year grant applications against new, unpublished policy priorities outlined in internal directives from February and June 2025, which were not in effect when the grants were first awarded. Evanson ruled that the department's plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
“Because the department’s termination plan likely reflects an unexplained change in department policy, and the department’s plan likely fails to comply with its own regulations or the statutes identified in this section, and bases terminations on factors Congress did not intend the department to consider, the department’s termination plan is likely arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law and thus violates the Administrative Procedure Act.”
The dispute centers on two programs created by Congress in 2018 and 2020 following high-profile school shootings: the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program. The multi-year grants are designed to bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into high-need, low-income schools. The states contend that the programs have served nearly 775,000 students and achieved a 50% reduction in suicide risk at participating schools, making the administration's attempts to cancel them a direct threat to student safety.
This ruling underscores a broader national pattern of federal courts serving as a critical check on the Trump administration's unilateral efforts to redirect or withhold congressionally appropriated funds, as seen in parallel battles over special education funding and disaster relief grants.
-
An instance of Unilateral executive efforts to withhold, redirect, or bypass legislatively mandated program funding face swift judicial blocks. — The federal court intervened again to block the department's renewed attempt to unilaterally terminate school-based mental health grants. ↩︎