The truth comes out!
A federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s move to rein in wasteful government spending is now under fire for alleged conflicts of interest — raising serious questions about judicial ethics and taxpayer accountability.
Judge John McConnell, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a sweeping injunction earlier this year that blocked President Trump’s effort to temporarily freeze discretionary federal financial assistance. Now, a prominent conservative legal group is demanding action — citing the judge’s deep ties to a nonprofit that has received millions in federal funding.
Conservative Legal Watchdog Uncovers Troubling Financial Ties
America First Legal (AFL), a pro-Trump watchdog group founded to uphold constitutional values and protect taxpayers, has filed a formal ethics complaint with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint alleges that Judge McConnell’s longtime involvement with Crossroads Rhode Island, a homeless services nonprofit, presents a serious conflict of interest.
Tax documents reviewed by AFL reveal that McConnell served on the Crossroads board from 2006 through 2023 — and acted as board chairman for a decade. During that time, Crossroads reportedly received at least $128 million in taxpayer-funded government grants. In 2023 alone, over 64% of its revenue came from public funding.
“Although Judge McConnell maintained a lengthy association with a federally funded nonprofit, he chose not to remove himself from the case,” America First Legal stated. “This decision may breach federal statutes and judicial ethics guidelines.”
Blocking Trump’s Freeze on Wasteful Spending
The controversy began in January when the Trump administration moved to temporarily pause certain types of federal financial assistance. The goal: to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and political favoritism in discretionary programs. The freeze did not impact Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid — despite media fear-mongering.
Within days, left-leaning states — including Rhode Island, which has funded Crossroads — sued the administration. Judge McConnell sided with the plaintiffs and issued an emergency injunction. In March, he escalated it to an indefinite injunction, accusing the Trump administration of overstepping its constitutional authority.
His ruling was sharply criticized by conservatives as a judicial overreach designed to block a fiscally responsible executive action. AFL argues that his decision was tainted by undisclosed financial entanglements with a federal grant recipient.
Taxpayer Dollars at Stake
Crossroads Rhode Island has pulled in more than $15 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development since 2010 — including $2.2 million in 2024 alone. State and local grants brought in millions more, boosting its influence and operations using public funds. The nonprofit’s cozy relationship with government funding raises even more concerns about impartiality in McConnell’s courtroom.
A spokesperson confirmed McConnell left the Crossroads board in April 2024 — just months after he ruled against President Trump. Critics say the timing appears suspicious.
Trump Administration Fights Back
President Trump’s legal team is now appealing the judge’s order. At the same time, the administration is moving to curtail the power of lower courts to issue broad, nationwide injunctions that block presidential actions.
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a critical case involving Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. That ruling could reshape how much influence federal judges can wield over national policies — a move many conservatives say is long overdue.
Conservative Leaders Call for Accountability
“This case highlights why restoring integrity to our courts must be a top priority,” said a senior Trump adviser. “We cannot allow unelected judges with political connections to override the will of the people and the authority of the president.”
Despite praise from progressive groups, Judge McConnell’s impartiality is now in question. The Rhode Island Bar Association rushed to defend him, but their statements have sidestepped the core concern: why didn’t he recuse himself?
The American people — especially hard-working taxpayers — deserve a judiciary that puts the Constitution first, not one that protects its own.
