Elon Musk's DOGE, HHS ended $18 million contract with San Antonio nonprofit over empty migrant housing facility
Since Donald Trump took office, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been on a mission to fight waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. DOGE also has an X account highlighting the actions it is taking to allegedly help taxpayers save money.
In late February, DOGE's X account sent out a message reporting it had ended a contract with a San Antonio non-profit called Family Endeavors, claiming that by having HHS terminate the contract, they'd saved taxpayers over $215 million per year.
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Home prices in America could fly through the roof in 2025 — here's the big reason why and how to take full advantage (with as little as $10)
Americans with upside-down car loans owe more money than ever before — and drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to cut your monthly costs ASAP
Endeavors, however, claims it was fulfilling its mandate, and that its contract was not an example of fraudulent spending. The non-profit issued a statement, saying that 'any claims of corruption or mismanagement are baseless.'
So, what exactly happened, and what was the contact DOGE put an end to?
According to the DOGE post, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was paying around $18 million per month to Endeavors to run a facility in Pecos, Texas, that was intended for use housing unaccompanied migrant children. However, at the time, the facility was sitting empty.
DOGE officials felt that paying millions per month for an unused shelter wasn't the best use of taxpayer money — especially as it noted the occupancy of national licensed facilities is now below 20% — so it ended the contract.
Endeavors, however, believes it was acting within the scope of its obligations and that the service it was providing was a valuable one that was in line with its obligations. In an interview with News 4 San Antonio, a source from Endeavors shared that the shelter had been occupied from March 2021 to March 2023, and again from September 2023 to February 2024, over which time it served 40,000 unaccompanied minors.
When the government stopped using the shelter in March 2024, Endeavors said funding was still needed to pay all the expenses associated with keeping the shelter ready to be used again at any time — like its lease, medical facilities, vaccine refrigeration and the hundreds of cameras required for security.
It also said federal officials were on site daily, and that the federal government decided which locations should be used as shelters for migrants and not the nonprofit itself.
Regardless, the contract has now come to an end so Endeavors' work with the government on this issue is halted, at least for now, along with payments to the nonprofit.
Read more: Jamie Dimon issues a warning about the US stock market — says prices are 'kind of inflated.' Crashproof your portfolio with these 3 rock-solid strategies
The DOGE post on X didn't just focus on the emptiness of the facility. It also aimed to highlight the connections Endeavors had with the Biden administration in order to cast doubt on whether the contract was on the up-and-up in the first place.
The X post stated that, 'A former ICE employee and Biden transition team member joined Family Endeavors in early 2021 and helped secure a sole-source HHS contract for overflow housing from licensed care facilities. As a result, Family Endeavors' cash and portfolio of investments grew from $8.3M in 2020 to $520.4M in 2023.'
While this might seem like a conflict of interest, Endeavors' statement indicated the nonprofit had been serving migrant families under contracts with the government since 2012 and that it was just one of 15 organizations contracting with the government in 2021 to try to help house migrants.
'Our selection was based on our proven experience, capacity, and more than a decade of performance,' the nonprofit stated.
Evidence of a connection with former government officials alone isn't, by itself, evidence of corruption or wrongdoing, so readers of DOGE and Endeavors' statements can draw their own conclusions from the competing facts.
It's worth noting, though, that Musk's companies SpaceX and Tesla have been awarded $18 billion in federal contracts since 2015 — although those contracts were largely awarded under the Biden administration. Still, some have questioned whether Musk himself may have a conflict of interest in determining what contracts will be cut as they believe it's unlikely his own company's contracts will be on the chopping block — unlike the contract with Endeavor.
One dozen eggs in America now costs a record high of $4.95 — here are 3 simple ways to inflation-proof your retirement portfolio
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Protect your retirement savings with these 5 essential money moves — most of which you can complete in just minutes
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court ended its term with a big win for President Donald Trump. This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court. Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Here are the highlights. Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.' Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.' Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming 'emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. 'The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions,' Chilakarmarri said. 'But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies.' The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion 'nuking universal injunctions,' she also 'juked' the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a 'squishy' or 'rattled' law professor. 'I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have,' Trump said. 'Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.' Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education.' Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act – commonly known as Obamacare – the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline 'in due course.' The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where Birthright Citizenship Still Allowed in US
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling overturning nationwide bans on his birthright citizenship changes, more than 20 states still have rulings in place that preserve the right as it stands. Friday morning's 6-3 ruling on universal injunctions meant that the president's move to restrict automatic U.S. citizenship to babies born to American citizens and those with permanent legal status could go into effect. However, that will not be the case in every state. "I'm delighted that the Supreme Court took an important step to reign in lawlessness in the lower courts, which have repeatedly issued 'universal' injunctions far beyond the parties to the case and hance beyond their legal, jurisdictional, and constitutional authority," John Eastman, of the Claremont Institute which advocated for Trump's changes, told Newsweek. "But there remains room for the lawlessness in the lower courts to continue, because the Court majority left open the possibility that the same results could be accomplished via nationwide class actions. The concurring justices warned against such games, but I doubt the lower courts will heed the warning." Why It Matters While conservative justices made it clear they were not ruling on birthright citizenship itself, their move to clean up judicial powers potentially leads to a patchwork approach to how birthright citizenship will be applied in around a month, when Trump's changes can take effect. What To Know At the center of Friday's ruling were three lower court cases from Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington, where judges had issued universal injunctions blocking a January executive order. The Trump administration argued that local courts should not be able to block executive policies nationwide, a position with which the Supreme Court agreed. That now means those three rulings will be limited to those specific states, as well as to the states that joined the individual lawsuits. Those three states were not the only ones to have seen judges issue injunctions on birthright citizenship restrictions; they were just the ones that lent their names to the cases that reached the Supreme Court. Trump's policy remains blocked in the following states: Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island Vermont Washington Wisconsin In the remaining states, Trump's order can go into effect 30 days after Friday's ruling, pending any further legal action. That order limits birthright citizenship to those who are U.S. citizens or in the country with legal permanent residency, excluding those on visitor and temporary visas, as well as undocumented immigrants. Professor Samuel Bray, a nationwide injunctions expert at Notre Dame Law School, told Newsweek that there would likely be litigation now on two fronts—Firstly, the states that want broader injunctions against Trump's executive order, and secondly, a "surge of new class actions" against how the executive order will be enforced. Demonstrators protest in support of birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. Demonstrators protest in support of birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying Professor Samuel Bray, in his statement sent to Newsweek: "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal. I do not expect the President's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect. Today's decision is a vindication and reassertion of the proper role of the federal courts in our constitutional system." John Eastman of the Claremont Institute told Newsweek: "I am troubled by the outright falsehoods in the dissenting opinions regarding the claim that Trump's EO is 'patently unconstitutional' and a violation of long-settled law. My brief in the case points out a number of those falsities. And I'm sure we'll have more opportunity to do so as the case now progresses on the merits." President Donald Trump, on Truth Social: "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ." Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, in a press release: "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone. The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." What Happens Next While further litigation is expected regarding birthright citizenship, the White House now has 30 days to outline how it will enforce its changes in states where the president's order can take effect.
Engadget
30 minutes ago
- Engadget
Trump ends trade talks with Canada over a digital services tax
President Donald Trump said the US is ending trade talks with Canada, effective immediately, over a tax on digital services that will impact American tech companies. He also pledged to announce further tariffs on Canada within the next week, adding in a Truth Social post that "they will be paying to do business with the United States of America." Canada's digital services tax (DST) is set to take effect on June 30, though it will be applied retroactively. According to The New York Times , US companies are preparing to pay around $2.7 billion to the Canadian government to cover a three percent tax on revenue they generated from users in the country. Companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb are subject to the levy, as things stand. In his post on Friday, Trump called the DST "a direct and blatant attack on our country." Amid trade talks with the US, Canada's finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said this month that the country had no plans to hit the pause button on the DST . Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney previously said they aimed to reach a trade deal by around July 20. Since taking office in January, Trump has been using tariffs as a negotiating tactic with other nations. The US reached a trade deal with China over rare earth minerals this week, and it is soon set to reimpose some of the levies that were put on hold in April for 90 days . The DST has been a bone of contention between the US and Canada for years. The Biden administration formally challenged the levy last year under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Other jurisdictions have considered or enacted a similar tax. It was reported in May that Germany is mulling a 10 percent levy on platforms such as Google and Facebook.
