Billions in federal funds still inaccessible, says emergency motion filed in R.I. federal court
Since Jan 27, the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources has been blocked from accessing $125 million in federal grants for various energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives, including Solar for All initiatives. (Photo by Getty images)
Twelve days and two separate federal court orders later, state agencies and their beneficiaries are still not able to access billions of dollars in critical federal grants and aid.
Which is why 23 Democratic attorneys general suing President Donald Trump and his administration are asking for a federal judge in Rhode Island to intervene. The 21-page motion filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island late Friday afternoon asks Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. for emergency, immediate enforcement of his existing order blocking a federal funding freeze.
McConnell issued the temporary restraining order on Jan. 31, preventing Trump and other federal cabinet heads from blocking access to funds until further notice.
But across the country, state governments, including Rhode Island, remain locked out of payment systems and other portals controlling billions of federal funding, the AGs wrote in their latest filing.
'There has been an ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more since entry of the Order,' the filing states. 'These conditions persist today.'
Lawsuits multiply against Trump barrage of orders as Democrats struggle to fight back
The AGs filing continues, 'while it is imaginable that a certain amount of machinery would need to be re-tooled in order to undo the breadth of the Federal Funding Freeze, there is no world in which these scattershot outages, which as of this writing impact billions of dollars in federal funding across the Plaintiff States, can constitute compliance with this Court's Order.'
In court documents submitted Feb. 3, Daniel Schwei, the U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing the Trump administration, wrote that the administration did not interpret the temporary restraining order to apply to Trump's executive orders or to federal agencies not named in the lawsuit. Schwei also indicated federal funds allocated through Biden-era programs under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act were not subject to the court order.
This has put key environmental, research, health care and infrastructure programs at risk, as the AGs write in their latest request for emergency enforcement. In Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources (OER) has been unable to access $125 million in federal grants for various energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives, some of which were frozen starting Jan. 27, according to a supplemental, 78-page document submitted Friday. As of Wednesday, OER has not heard back on its Jan. 28 email regarding the suspending funding for solar incentives, the AGs wrote.
Robert Beadle, a spokesperson for OER, confirmed the frozen funds in an email Friday evening.
'OER is working with the Governor's Office and the Attorney General's Office to resolve this issue in light of the Temporary Restraining Order,' Beadle said.
Meanwhile, Brown University has experienced 'near immediate disruptions' to its research projects, including a canceled review of $71 million in National Institutes of Health funding for dementia research, according to court documents.
'As long as this Administration continues to break the law, we will continue our fight to uphold it,' Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who is co-leading the lawsuit, said in a statement Friday. 'Let me be as crystal clear as Judge McConnell's order: we're not interested in playing these games, especially when it comes to funding programs that Americans rely on to survive and thrive.'
McConnell has given the DOJ team representing the Trump administration until Sunday to respond, according to court documents.
McConnell has separately scheduled a hearing in federal court in Providence on Feb. 21 to hear arguments on the AGs' request for a longer term and more broad-sweeping block on a funding freeze.
On Monday, a federal judge in D.C. issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding freeze in response to a separate lawsuit filed by nonprofit and business groups.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Terry Moran out at ABC News following X post attacking Trump, Stephen Miller
ABC News correspondent Terry Moran is leaving the network after he took aim at President Donald Trump and top White House aide Stephen Miller in a now-deleted post on X. "We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew," a spokesperson for ABC News confirmed to Fox News Digital. "At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism," the spokesperson added. Moran found himself in hot water both inside and outside the Disney-owned network when he called Trump and Miller "world-class" haters early Sunday morning. Moran, who's been with the network since 1997, was initially suspended after ABC News honchos woke up to the viral backlash.
Miami Herald
13 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
