logo
Why a tree-planting nonprofit in Chicago is suing the Trump administration

Why a tree-planting nonprofit in Chicago is suing the Trump administration

Yahoo20-03-2025

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region.
Reverend Brian Sauder had good news in January for 58 faith-based organizations across the Midwest. His Chicago environmental nonprofit, Faith in Place. would be giving each of them a grant to fund tree planting in low-income communities and create urban forestry jobs to maintain them. Those additional trees would help mitigate the effects of climate change and air pollution.
But the good news didn't last long.
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed his 'Unleashing American Energy' executive order, which abruptly froze the distribution of funds from the Biden administration's sweeping climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. The move has left critical initiatives in limbo, including urban and community forestry programs like Sauder's Faith in Place.
'To have to call up those grant awardees and say to them: 'Hey, you need to stop work on this. We can't reimburse you. There's a lot of uncertainty right now.' [It] was absolutely devastating,' said Sauder, whose organization has already had to lay off five employees as a result of the federal freeze.
Read Next
The secret ingredient in Biden's climate law? City trees.
Matt Simon
The Inflation Reduction Act had pledged $1.5 billion to plant more trees in cities and ensure their survival, too. The funding, roughly 40 times what the federal government typically had spent on urban forestry, promised to transform the urban environment across the country. Nonprofits and local governments staffed up to administer the historic level of funding and made big promises to low-income and minority communities to help 'green' their neighborhoods. Now, organizations like Faith in Place, still unable to access federal funds, are facing the financial fallout.
'We're a microcosm of what's happening all across the country with these uncertainties and the government not keeping its commitment to these contracts,' Sauder said.
In response, Faith in Place has signed onto a lawsuit spearheaded by Earthjustice, a nonprofit that litigates national environmental issues. The suit seeks to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which distributes the funds, to honor its financial commitments.
'The President cannot come in and say: 'We're not doing that, we're not following the law that Congress legislated.' That's a violation of separation of powers,' said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice.
The legal challenge comes as federal judges have ordered the government to release the Inflation Reduction Act funds already appropriated by Congress, but the USDA has yet to do so. To date, the freeze has stalled hundreds of urban forestry projects nationwide, including one to improve Portland's shrinking tree canopy, an initiative to restore the more than 200,000 trees lost in New Orleans in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and plans to redress the longstanding disparity in tree coverage across Chicago's majority Black and Latino communities on the city's South and West sides.
In a statement the USDA said it was in the process of reviewing all grants and while it had authorized certain 'mission critical' services to resume, it could not provide information on individual grants.
A 20 minute drive west of the city's downtown sits the historic Stone Temple Baptist Churchi, once a local touchpoint of the civil rights movement, hosting rallies and speakers like Reverend. Martin Luther King Jr.. Federal money was supposed to cover the cost of planting fruit trees in its community garden, providing the majority Black community with seasonal access to pears, peaches, apples and plums.
'The goal was to get the trees in the ground this spring,' Sauder said. But that's not happening amidst the funding uncertainty.
As cities like Chicago grapple with rising global temperatures, improving the urban canopy — the layer of collective tree cover in a city — isn't just about beautifying the neighborhood. Trees help reduce air pollution and are increasingly among the most cost effective ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change, according to Vivek Shandas, who researches climate change at Portland State University and is a member of the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council.
Read Next
Another casualty of Trump's funding freeze: New Orleans' tree canopy
Tristan Baurick
'Trees are there very quietly, providing essential ecosystem services,' Shandas said. 'Every single day, they're cleaning the air, they're cooling the neighborhoods, they're absorbing the rainwater, and they're doing all of these things for absolutely free.'
The problem: Chicago's urban tree canopy is unevenly distributed across the city — often favoring whiter, weather neighborhoods — and it's also shrinking due to disease and urban development. The city's canopy cover dropped from 19 percent to 16 percent between 2010 and 2020, according to a report from The Morton Arboretum, a public garden and center for tree research in suburban Chicago.
The funding freeze has also halted plans to plant trees statewide.
The Trump administration paused nearly $14 million in Inflation Reduction Act funding promised to the state of Illinois for projects that included hazard tree removal and pruning, tree plantings, tree inventories, and other work related to tree canopy management in Illinois communities.
'It's really upsetting that the government's not keeping their end of the bargain,' Sauder said. 'We've kept our commitment, and they aren't keeping their commitment to us.'
Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist's editorial decisions.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why a tree-planting nonprofit in Chicago is suing the Trump administration on Mar 20, 2025.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts

Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028.
Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028.

USA Today

time31 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028.

Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028. | Opinion 2026 midterm elections will indicate how much their popularity recovers after more than a year of Trump 2.0 in office, but Democrats need to begin strategizing now. Show Caption Hide Caption Karine Jean-Pierre talks exit from Democratic party in new book Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talks about leaving the Democratic party in her upcoming book slated for release in October. The Democratic Party is facing low popularity following the failed Kamala Harris campaign and revelations about the cover-up of President Biden's decline. Potential Democratic presidential candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom face challenges due to their association with the Biden administration and progressive policies. Republicans have a clearer path to 2028 with potential candidates like JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis. Democrats' best hope for 2028 lies in a fresh candidate, distanced from the Biden administration and holding more moderate views. Despite the busy news cycle of President Donald Trump's young second administration, I can't help but look to 2028, which looks to be the first election where both parties have a new presidential candidate since 2016. Republicans seem to have some form of succession plan, with Vice President JD Vance looming in the wake of Trump's final term. But Democrats are in a much more difficult position, with numerous baggage and imperfect candidates. Democrats will need new voices, free from the baggage of Joe Biden's presidency and the woke era, to win America's trust. Democrats will have a ton of baggage to deal with in 2028 The Democratic Party as a whole is facing a record low in popularity in the wake of Kamala Harris' failed presidential campaign and more information about the cover-up of Biden's decline. The 2028 midterm elections will indicate how much the Democrats' popularity recovers after more than a year of Trump presidency 2.0, but the party needs to begin strategizing now. The people who were complicit in, or at the very least ignored, Biden's decline are the most politically stained. Anybody affiliated with the Biden administration is going to face questions of why they didn't speak up when they knew the president was not capable of fulfilling his duties. Democrats handed Trump a win: Biden didn't deceive Democrats about his decline. It's time to admit the truth. | Opinion As people like former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom attempt to scramble to the center on cultural issues, they are bound to experience different sets of barriers that keep their electability in check. Buttigieg, due to his involvement with the Biden administration, is going to have to answer whether he knew about Biden's decline, and either how he could have missed it or why he didn't speak up. There is no good answer to any part of that line of questioning. For Newsom, he and other governors have the benefit of distance from the Biden administration, so they have plausible deniability as to what exactly they knew. Newsom also has a long-established record of very progressive policies. During his time as governor of California, he presided over violent racial riots in 2020, as well as higher rising violent crime rates than the rest of the nation. The more recent protests and riots in the streets of Los Angeles under his governorship won't help him to leave that image in the past. Newsom also has baggage on other social issues, including taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants and his past full embrace of transgender ideologies, both of which he has attempted to walk back in recent months. Opinion: Newsom tries to use right-wing influencers to fix his image. Don't fall for it. Harris' troubles on the campaign trail of differentiating herself from Biden's decline and her own progressive record should be a warning to Democrats. These are going to be difficult mistakes to overcome as a presidential candidate. I know Republicans have issues, but Democrats need a new voice Republicans have a similar predicament in 2028, but they have politicians at the ready who are capable of winning the presidency. Vance represents a continuation of the MAGA movement, but if Republicans decide they are a bit tired of full-blown MAGA politics, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are both likely to eye a presidential bid. Regardless of how the second Trump administration ages with voters, the GOP has options for 2028. Republicans have a clearer chain of succession than Democrats, even if Vance and Rubio will have to answer for any issues with the second Trump administration. Whitmer for president? As a Michigan taxpayer, here's why voters should stay away. | Opinion Still, Democrats have some hope. The Democratic Party is ripe for a surprise candidate to emerge in the next two years to pursue the presidency. While the political climate is different, Democrats need to look for an emerging candidate, similar to the one they had in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the primary and went on to win the White House twice. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Somebody as dissociated with the Biden presidency as possible has a strong advantage, as does someone with a more moderate record. Governors, or newly elected senators, are the best chance for the Democrats. I predict that the Democrats' nominee in 2028 is someone not yet on people's radars, and that would be the best possible outcome for them. The baggage that Democrats have will weigh them down in 2028. It is best if they find someone without those ankle weights. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

Elizabeth Warren: Trump Is Right About This One Thing
Elizabeth Warren: Trump Is Right About This One Thing

New York Times

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Elizabeth Warren: Trump Is Right About This One Thing

It is possible that hell has frozen over. President Trump and I agree on something very important: Abolish the debt limit. The debt limit is a political tool that allows the minority party to threaten economic collapse, forcing Congress to negotiate its demands. It serves no other function. None. It has no impact on spending, and it doesn't restrain the growth of the national debt. I've pushed publicly and privately, whether Democrats or Republicans have been in charge, to scrap the debt ceiling permanently. Now, with Mr. Trump's support, our country could finally get rid of this form of brinkmanship that has, for decades, threatened the stability of our economy. The debt limit caps the amount of money the U.S. government can borrow. If the government hits the limit before Congress authorizes an increase, the U.S. would default on its debt. That means not making interest payments on U.S. bonds, not paying our military or halting Social Security checks. Chaos in the financial markets could cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs, while the cost of home mortgages and car loans would skyrocket. In short, we would create a self-inflicted financial crisis. Republicans claim they want to reduce the national debt, but their actions tell a different story. For decades, they have used their time in power to slash the taxes paid by wealthy Americans and corporations, forgoing trillions needed to fund our government. President George W. Bush's and Mr. Trump's past tax cuts alone drove up the national debt by an estimated $10 trillion. Then, whenever a Democrat made it into the White House, Republicans threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to whatever political demands the Republicans were focused on. Consider the last few times either party regained control of the White House. In 2011, when President Barack Obama was in office, Republicans refused to lift the debt limit until Democrats agreed to $2 trillion in cuts, which cost the economy up to seven million jobs and substantially delayed our recovery from the Great Recession. When Mr. Trump won the election in 2016, Republicans promptly increased the national debt by passing a $1.9 trillion giveaway, largely to rich people and giant corporations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store