Over $6 billion in US after-school literacy grants withheld by Trump administration
Organisations like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, which depend on these grants to serve low-income families, warn that programs may be forced to shut down mid-season. 'If these funds are blocked, the fallout will be swift and devastating,' said Jim Clark, the group's president. As many as 926 club sites could be at risk of closure, impacting more than 220,000 children.In Alabama's Gadsden City Schools, officials say they will be forced to cancel their after-school programmes for over 1,200 students unless the funding resumes. 'We have no alternative to make up for the loss,' said Janie Browning, director of the programme. She emphasised that these programmes provide more than supervision—they keep children safe and offer critical academic and emotional support while parents work.advertisementThe funding freeze has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) urged the administration to release the money, stating that every day of delay puts school districts in a position where they must consider layoffs and cutbacks rather than student success.WHAT'S AT STAKE?The grants under review include:21st Century Community Learning Centres: The primary federal funding source for after-school and summer learning, supporting over 10,000 programs across the country.$2 billion for professional development and class-size reduction for teachers$1 billion for academic enrichment, such as science, math, and accelerated learning$890 million for English language learners$376 million to support education for children of migrant workers$715 million for adult literacy initiativesThese programmes represent more than 20% of federal K–12 education funding in the District of Columbia, according to the Learning Policy Institute. In large states like California and Texas, hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding are now in limbo.Critics fear that this freeze is a precursor to eliminating the programs altogether, as Trump's proposed 2026 budget seeks to eliminate many of these grants entirely.Advocates like Jodi Grant of the Afterschool Alliance warn that the freeze could have long-lasting consequences, not only for families but also for the broader economy. 'Withholding these funds jeopardises learning, employment, and essential support systems for communities across the country,' she said.advertisementAs of now, the Department of Education maintains that no final decisions have been made, and questions have been referred to the Office of Management and Budget, which has yet to respond. Meanwhile, schools and families continue to wait, facing increasing uncertainty and the potential collapse of vital support services.(With AP inputs)- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump administration in talks to take 10% stake in Intel, reports
The Trump administration is in talks to take a 10% stake in Intel by converting some or all of the struggling company's Chips Act grants into equity, Bloomberg News reported, citing a White House official and other people familiar with the matter. Shares of Intel fell 3.8% on Monday, after rallying last week on hopes of US federal support. A 10% stake in the American chipmaker would be worth about $10 billion. Intel has been slated to receive a combined $10.9 billion in Chips Act grants for commercial and military production, and the figure is roughly enough to pay for the government's holding, according to the Bloomberg report on Monday. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. Intel and the White House did not respond to Reuters requests for comment. Media reports said last week that the US government may buy a stake in Intel, after a meeting between CEO Lip-Bu Tan and President Donald Trump that was sparked by Trump's demand for the new Intel chief's resignation over his ties to Chinese firms. Federal backing could give Intel more breathing room to revive its loss-making foundry business, analysts have said, but it still suffers from a weak product roadmap and challenges in attracting customers to its new factories. Trump, who called the meeting with Tan 'very interesting,' has taken an unprecedented approach to corporate interventions. He has pushed for multibillion-dollar government tie-ups in semiconductors and rare earths, such as a pay-for-play deal with Nvidia and an arrangement with rare earth producer MP Materials to secure critical minerals. Intel last year secured nearly $8 billion in subsidies, the largest outlay under the act, to build new factories in Ohio and other states as former CEO Pat Gelsinger bet on them to restore the company's manufacturing edge. Tan, however, pared back such ambitions, slowing construction in Ohio. He plans to build factories based on demand for the services, which analysts have said could put him at odds with Trump's push to shore up American manufacturing.
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Alaskan winds, India and the Trump-Putin summit
The 'Alaska Moment' between United States President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, 2025 will translate to other objectives for Ukraine as Mr. Trump engages with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, leading up to a possible trilateral summit in a quest for the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For New Delhi, however, the Alaska Summit did not yield the clear-cut outcomes many had hoped for before the meeting between the leaders of two of India's closest friends. Nor did it help the peculiar sense of vulnerability that Indian diplomacy faced, of having so much at stake in a meeting while having so little agency in its results. Broadly, the Narendra Modi government had hoped that a U.S.-Russia rapprochement would take off some of the pressure from the U.S. India has felt over its ties with Russia. However, while there was a visible warmth in the Trump-Putin exchanges, this did not result in a less chilling tone that Mr. Trump has had towards India. He has been taking India to task on a number of issues. More specifically, hopes rose that the Alaska meeting would result in a rollback of the U.S.'s planned 25% secondary sanctions on India for buying Russian oil; the resumption of India-U.S. trade talks that Mr. Trump has held up over the Russia oil issue; and a subsequent revision of the 25% reciprocal tariffs already in place. In a severely-worded piece in the Financial Times ('India's oil lobby is funding Putin's war machine — that has to stop'), Peter Navarro, who is Mr. Trump's Senior Counselor on Trade and Manufacturing, virtually dashed such hopes, making it clear that the double tariffs were a 'two-pronged policy' by the U.S. to 'hit India where it hurts', for both the Russian imports and for its curbs on market access. No change in India policies Nor was there any indicator that Mr. Trump would let up on the other pain point: his counter-narrative to the Modi government's account of Operation Sindoor (May 7-10) and how the ceasefire was achieved. Not only did Mr. Trump repeat that he has mediated the India-Pakistan ceasefire, using trade as a leverage to corral both sides, but he now adds that a nuclear conflict would have followed as both sides were 'shooting down airplanes', a version at considerable odds from that of the Modi government, which has thus far conceded that it had no losses in the conflict. Thus, the first takeaway from the Summit must be this: while Mr. Trump's re-engagement and bonhomie with Mr. Putin may help Moscow, it does not mean a revision of his policies toward India. In any case, the rationale behind the secondary sanctions on India is dubious, and more about power games than about punishing Russia. The U.S. has itself increased its trade with Russia since Mr. Trump came to power and China imports of Russian oil have been consistently larger than India's. Hitting India with sanctions while feting the Russian President and ignoring China's actions seems to indicate that the reasons for the U.S.'s actions lie elsewhere. Many have suggested that Mr. Trump has acted out of pique — upset that Mr. Modi ignored his claims to have mediated with the Pakistanis. Reports suggested that Mr. Modi also rebuffed U.S. moves for him to sit down with the Pakistani leadership in Riyadh or in Washington, and that the Modi-Trump call on June 17 was extremely acrimonious and awkward as a result. Mr. Trump's more obvious focus appears to be recognition for his peace-making efforts, and a possible Nobel Peace Prize, and the Modi government has already missed the bus to give him the credit for the Operation Sindoor ceasefire that Mr. Trump so clearly wants. New Delhi must decide whether it wishes to jump through hoops for Washington, or whether it would be more sensible to step back and allow the Trump administration to do its worst before assessing a response and turn its energies to other parts of the world. There may be avenues to shore up India's options on trade relationships with Mr. Modi's upcoming visits to Japan and then to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meet, a possible visit to the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly, and then South Africa for the G-20 summit. There is also Mr. Putin's visit to India soon. The bellwether event for India-U.S. ties will be the upcoming Quad Summit (India, U.S., Japan, Australia) that India is due to host later this year. It is still unclear whether Mr. Trump will visit India, especially if no India-U.S. trade deal is done by then, and whether the Indian government will be in any mood to roll out the red carpet. Returning to substance The second takeaway should be a lesson in not allowing 'Summitry' to overtake India's broader interests. For more than a decade, the 'Modi mantra' of foreign policy has been about personal magic and chemistry, of dealing one-to-one with leaders of other countries, as his imprimatur on bilateral ties. As a result, visits abroad have been judged by the number of joint public appearances, handshakes and embraces as well as special honours and awards that are given to the Prime Minister, rather than the actual agreements and concessions between them. With China, however, the 18 one-on-one meetings between Mr. Modi and China's President Xi Jinping between 2014-19 did not generate the requisite understanding to foresee Chinese People's Liberation Army's transgressions along the Line of Actual Control and the Galwan clashes. With the U.S., too, Mr. Modi's close engagements during the Trump 1.0 tenure (the 'Howdy Modi' rally in Texas in 2019 and the 'Namaste Trump' rally in Gujarat in 2020), as well as his early visit to Washington under the Trump 2.0 administration in February 2025 should have given the two leaders enough of an understanding of the other. Given the shocks that have followed, it may be time to turn back the focus to substance over style. But that substance becomes more difficult to seek in Trumpian times, given that most foreign policy decisions are being taken by Mr. Trump himself and a small ring around him in the White House, with few appointments being made on the desks that deal with India in the National Security Council or the State Department. In the 'good times' Delhi and Washington have worked well, even without a U.S. Ambassador in place in India. But at present, it is clear that a senior envoy with a keen knowledge of India as well as the U.S. President's ear are necessary to navigate the turbulence in ties. Maintain a political balance The third lesson of the past few months is that India must reclaim bipartisanship in diplomatic relations, and build and maintain ties on both sides of the political spectrum, regardless of which party is in power. In the U.S., the Democratic party establishment was unhappy about the Trump-Modi rallies because they were held just months before the U.S. presidential election in 2020, and India had to spend some time, subsequently, repairing ties with the Joe Biden administration. Four years later, this annoyed Mr. Trump, the Republican contender, especially as he felt the contrast between the close personal bonhomie while he was in power and the fact that the Mr. Modi and his envoys did not spend time with him when he was out of power, including during the three times Mr. Modi travelled to the U.S., in 2021, 2023 and 2024, to hold talks with Mr. Biden. Closer home, this bipartisanship has been proven to trip up India's ties in the neighbouring countries as well — Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives. Fourth, Mr. Trump's penalties on India's import of oil, after the U.S. allowed, even actively encouraged the purchases before, show how fickle the global power can be and how futile it is for India to forego its principles in order to please a particular regime. India's time-honoured principle of only acceding to UN-mandated sanctions was broken in 2018 when the government bowed to Mr. Trump's threats of sanctions against Iranian oil, and then Venezuelan oil, possibly emboldening him to demand the same against the use of Russian oil this time. By accepting such unreasonable orders, India does not just risk economic losses in foregoing cheaper oil. It also becomes complicit in the U.S.'s foreign policy objectives that do not necessarily align with India's national interests. Conversely, when India resists such moves, it wins the support of others in the Global South. And while they object, western powers grudgingly accept India's strategic autonomy in these matters. Finally, New Delhi must consider measures and countermeasures to deal with U.S. actions that hurt India's interests acutely — like the reciprocal and penalty tariffs that will make Indian goods far less competitive than those of its exporting rivals, curbs on U.S. manufacturing in India, or the remittance taxes on Indians working in the U.S. Getting back India's agency will require a firmer stance — one that is not buffeted by the winds in Alaska, at a summit meeting thousands of kilometres away from India. suhasini.h@
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trilateral push: Trump, Zelenskyy open to talks with Putin on Ukraine war
Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy say they are willing to enter trilateral dialogue with Vladimir Putin to end Russia's war in Ukraine New Delhi US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that they were open to three-way talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday to end Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I just spoke to President Putin indirectly, and we're going to have a phone call right after these meetings today — and we may or may not have a trilat,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, using shorthand for trilateral negotiations. Zelenskyy, appearing alongside Trump, echoed the sentiment. 'We are ready for trilateral as the president said. It's a good signal about trilateral. I think this is very good,' he told reporters. The comments came ahead of a high-stakes White House meeting with European leaders, where discussions focused on long-term security guarantees for Kyiv. Trump suggested that a 'NATO-like' framework could emerge, while stressing that US troops would not be deployed. Trump-Putin Alaska summit The remarks come just days after Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska, where the US president suggested that Zelenskyy would need to accept concessions to advance peace talks. Trump added that he plans to speak directly with the Russian leader again once his consultations with Zelenskyy and European counterparts conclude. After their press appearance, Trump and Zelenskyy held one-on-one talks before being joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. European leaders present united stance European leaders, excluded from Trump's earlier session with Putin, arrived in Washington to ensure Ukraine's interests are safeguarded and to prevent wider Russian aggression on the continent. Their collective appearance at the White House marks a show of diplomatic unity. The gathering may have also been aimed at preventing tensions seen in February, when Trump publicly rebuked Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting for not showing enough gratitude for US aid. This time, EU leaders sought to present a coordinated front before moving into joint discussions in the East Room.
