Arun Subramanian, an Indian-American judge appointed by former president Joe Biden, has emerged as the latest focal point of anger within the MAGA movement after issuing a ruling that temporarily halted the Donald Trump administration’s move to slash billions of dollars in federal funding for social welfare programmes in several Democrat-governed states. His decision has drawn sharp political backlash and intense online criticism from Trump allies and supporters.
According to a report by The New York Times, US District Judge Arun Subramanian on January 9 issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing an abrupt freeze on nearly $10 billion in federal aid. The funding was earmarked for child care, family assistance, and social service programmes across five Democratic-led states—New York, California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Colorado. The ruling immediately triggered a wave of criticism from conservative commentators, who accused the judge of judicial activism and political bias.
The Trump administration had announced the funding pause earlier in the month, citing what it described as serious concerns over fraud and misuse of public money in state-run welfare programmes. Officials pointed to investigations in Minnesota involving alleged daycare-related fraud within sections of the state’s Somali community, folding these claims into broader “America First” arguments focused on immigration, government spending, and accountability.
The affected states swiftly challenged the freeze in court, arguing that the administration’s action was unlawful and procedurally improper. They contended that the move violated Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending, bypassed required administrative processes, and posed immediate risks to vulnerable populations. The funding cuts targeted roughly $7.3 billion under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programme, about $2.4 billion for child care services, and additional smaller grants supporting social services. State officials warned that the freeze would disrupt employment, child care availability, and essential support systems for low-income families and people with disabilities.
New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the ruling, calling it a critical intervention for families who rely on these programmes. She said the decision protected hundreds of thousands of residents from sudden and severe disruptions caused by what she described as a harsh and unilateral policy shift by the administration.
Judge Subramanian, 45, is one of the youngest judges serving on the federal bench and made history in 2023 as the first South Asian judge appointed to the Southern District of New York. He was nominated by President Biden in 2022 and confirmed by the Senate on the recommendation of Senator Chuck Schumer. Born in Pittsburgh in 1979 to Indian immigrant parents, Subramanian grew up in a household that placed strong emphasis on education and public service.
He earned degrees in computer science and English from Case Western Reserve University before completing his law degree at Columbia Law School in 2004, where he was recognised as both a James Kent Scholar and a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. His early legal career included prestigious clerkships with Judge Gerard Lynch of the Southern District of New York, Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit, and US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He later joined the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP, where he became a partner and played a key role in securing more than $1 billion in judgments and settlements, while also taking on significant pro bono work.
On the bench, Subramanian has developed a reputation for a measured and disciplined judicial approach. His handling of the high-profile sentencing of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs in 2025 reinforced that image, as he stressed that judicial decisions must be grounded in evidence and law rather than public spectacle.
In the present case, Subramanian granted the states a 14-day temporary restraining order after an emergency hearing, directing the Department of Health and Human Services to resume fund disbursements while the legal challenge proceeds. Applying standard legal criteria—including the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—he concluded that the states had demonstrated sufficient cause to justify immediate relief. He highlighted the potentially devastating consequences of sudden funding cuts, including child care shortages, job losses, and the collapse of essential support networks, while deliberately avoiding any ruling on the underlying fraud allegations.
Despite the narrow and procedural nature of the order, the ruling placed Subramanian squarely in the MAGA firing line. Influential figures and accounts on X accused him of obstructing the administration’s agenda, branding him an “activist judge” and questioning his motives. Some commentary veered into xenophobic rhetoric, focusing on his heritage and casting doubt on his loyalty despite his American upbringing and credentials. Prominent Trump adviser Stephen Miller criticised the decision as undermining executive authority, arguing that a single judge should not be able to override policies enacted by an elected administration.
The backlash mirrors earlier attacks directed at other Indian-American judges who have ruled against Trump-era policies, reinforcing concerns among legal observers about the growing politicisation of the judiciary. Regardless of the rhetoric, Subramanian’s order has, at least temporarily, disrupted the Trump administration’s plans to sharply reduce social spending in Democratic-led states, ensuring that federal support continues while the courts examine the legality of the funding freeze.
