A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked a part of Donald Trump’s new law that targeted Planned Parenthood. The judge’s decision came after the nonprofit sued the Trump administration, arguing that the law would unfairly stop its clinics from getting money back through Medicaid.
This law, known as the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” was signed by Trump on July 4th and includes sweeping changes to U.S. tax and spending policies. One controversial part says that if a healthcare organization provides abortions and received over \$800,000 in federal funds last year, it can no longer get paid by Medicaid — a government program that helps cover healthcare for low-income people.
On Monday, Judge Indira Talwani (who was appointed by President Obama) said that part of the law would be put on hold for at least two weeks while she reviews whether to block it for a longer period. For now, Planned Parenthood can continue getting Medicaid payments.
The bill goes beyond just healthcare. It includes permanent tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and also boosts funding for immigration enforcement. But to pay for those changes, the bill slashes funding for programs like Medicaid and food assistance, which critics say will hurt everyday Americans — especially those who are poor, elderly, or living in Republican-led states.
The bill narrowly passed in the House with a vote of 218 to 214. Every Democrat and two Republicans voted against it.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries harshly criticized the bill, saying it’s being forced on Americans without concern for the consequences. He called it cruel and corrupt, arguing that real leadership should show care and integrity. Democratic Rep. Josh Riley said the law would destroy good manufacturing jobs, close hospitals in rural areas, and gut healthcare programs — all to hand out tax breaks to the rich. He didn’t hold back, saying: “Don’t tell me you care about the middle class when you’re screwing them over.”
While the legal fight over the bill is just beginning, this first ruling is a significant setback for one of the law’s most controversial parts.
