The Trump administration on Wednesday rescinded its memo to freeze federal aid to states and local entities, though it didn’t immediately clear up confusion in Colorado and elsewhere in the country over which programs are affected and how much money might be withheld from the states.

In announcing the freeze on Monday, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had included a list of almost 2,600 programs the Trump administration will review to ensure they do not “advance Marxist equity, transgenderism and Green New Deal social engineering policies.”

Worries — notably from Democratic officials — about federally-supported programs coming to a halt permeated Colorado’s local governments on Wednesday.

“It is clear – as clear as mud!” Gov. Jared Polis’ office said. “The state is continuing to evaluate the impact of the freeze and the chaotic ‘rescission’ issued by the Trump administration. Colorado and 21 other states are continuing to pursue litigation to put a definitive pause on the freeze and are awaiting an outcome in that legal proceeding.”

The governor’s office added: “We remain concerned this sloppy behavior will hurt businesses and people if not resolved soon and hope the administration makes good on its promise to focus on delivering for the American people.”

“We’re mapping out what the impacts would be and how we would manage those risks,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said. “We are very worried about the risk of a federal freeze of all federal grants. That would affect everything from roads and bridge construction to health care for veterans.”

Halting those programs, he added, would be “catastrophic.”

Republicans — some of whom have described the reaction to the freeze memo as alarmist rhetoric — have welcomed the pause, saying it gives the federal government the time to figure out where the government might be “too bloated or spending on frivolous initiatives, such as DEI.”

Commissioner Abe Laydon of Douglas County, a Republican enclave, echoed that sentiment on Wednesday.     

“While this pause will no doubt help the country catch its breath and avoid confusion, our board is confident this administration will remain laser-focused on out-of-control government spending that is inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of hard working tax-paying Americans who elected this president to protect their families and their wallets,” Laydon said. 

U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans of Colorado’s 8th Congressional District on Tuesday defended the freeze.

“First, the freeze is temporary and designed to give time for the White House to review where the government is overspending,” he said, noting that agencies have until Feb. 10 to report back on their programs.

The Office of Management and Budget issued a two-sentence notice rescinding the freeze memo a day after a federal judge temporarily halted the order just before it was to take effect on Tuesday.

The White House rescinded the memo to “end the confusion” and “end the injunction,” according to the Washington Examiner, citing a source. But reviews are ongoing and that money would be halted if it funds programs found to counter Trump’s priorities, the source added. 

Meanwhile, a statement posted on X by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested the freeze itself could still be in place, even if the memo had been undone.

“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction,” Leavitt wrote. “The President’s EOs on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

That statement led to further confusion about what the rescission of the memo did or did not do and a group of states who were separately suing over the policy cited it to argue that their lawsuit should continue during a hearing later on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell, an Obama appointee, heard arguments in that case in a Rhode Island courthouse after the memo was rescinded.

Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schwei argued that because the states’ lawsuit targeted the memo, the lawsuit was moot.

“I think the breadth of relief that plaintiffs are seeking are extraordinary,” Schwei said.

McConnell took a skeptical view of that argument, countering, “So, is the breadth of the OMB directive.”

A separate federal judge has already placed the spending freeze on hold. That judge, Biden-appointee Loren AliKhan, issued an order Tuesday preserving the status quo for six days in response to a separate lawsuit from nonprofit groups challenging the funding freeze.

In a news release, the White House accused media outlets of reporting “hoaxes” about the order’s rescission.

“A score of Fake News outlets, including Axios, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and many others, claimed President Trump’s directive to temporarily pause certain federal spending was ‘rescinded,'” the White House said. “No such thing took place. Instead, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget was rescinded in an effort to alleviate confusion.”

The Office of Management and Budget’s freeze order on Monday, which applied to some $3 trillion in funding, had asked agencies questions about each budget line.

“Does this program promote gender ideology?” one question asked.

While the administration on Tuesday said certain areas — such as Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare — would not be affected, the OMB listed included the following programs:

• Social Security

• “Unclear on Treasury Tax Credits”

• Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance ($520 billion)

• Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage ($120.6 billion)

• Medicare Hospital Insurance ($388.8 billlion)

• Medical Assistance Program ($689.6 billion)

• Federal Pell Grant Program ($36.6 billion)

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ($94.3 billion)

• Department of Agriculture funds for farmers 

The 64-page document also includes pensions for federal employees, veterans benefits, crop insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and disability payments.

Editor Luige Del Puerto and reporters Noah Festenstein, Ernest Luning and Robert Gluck contributed to this article, which included additional reporting from the Washington Examiner and the Associated Press.