Denver files lawsuit against Trump administration over rescinded FEMA funding
Denver joined Chicago and Pima County, Arizona, in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its move to revoke FEMA funding, the city announced Friday.
Why it matters: It's the latest way Denver is challenging President Trump's policies, which are targeting cities like Denver that aren't complying with the administration's immigration plans.
Denver bars its policing department from working with federal immigration authorities in most cases.
Context: The city claims the administration's move is unconstitutional and overrides Congressional constitutional authority.
The administration rescinded $24 million in federal grants for the city's migrant response, which city officials confirmed in April,
Catch up quick: Congress has appropriated money for reimbursing cities and states for costs to support migrants since Trump's first administration.
Their arrival in Denver — roughly 43,000 since 2022 — left the city scrambling to gather resources for people, and the city relied on federal money to provide them with services, including sheltering.
The federal program, called the Shelter and Services Program, pays back cities for the services "necessitated by the federal government's immigration policies," per a statement from the city.
The city claims the administration canceled the grants after Trump took office in January and did not inform grantees like Denver that the money wouldn't be made available.
What they're saying: "I am incredibly proud of how our city responded to this crisis and will continue to fight for the funding we were awarded but have not received," Mayor Mike Johnston said in a statement.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to Axios Denver's request for comment.
Between the lines: The lawsuit names U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting Administrator of the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency David Richardson.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
NEW YORK (AP) — The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency 'will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm,' said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, 'there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.' ___ Associated Press Writer Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
'The Five' touts need for 'transparency' following Biden's doctor being subpoenaed
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage MOMENTS AGO: Trump takes questions as Abrego-Garcia faces human trafficking charges
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration may ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office and other limited spaces for now, pausing a judge's order to return the wire service's access. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden's April 8 order deeming AP's exile from the press pool, a small group of journalists who document the president's movements and statements in and around the White House, unlawful. The White House's exclusion of AP stemmed from the outlet's refusal to use the term Gulf of America in its popular stylebook. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Gregory Katsas, both appointees of President Trump. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' The judges said that, without a stay, the government would suffer irreparable harm because the injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces that hold a limited number of officials and journalists. The AP's spot in the president's press pool has traditionally been secured daily, both at the White House and when the president is traveling. Its reporters are usually granted access in a tradition dating back decades. 'The AP and the district court again lean heavily on the history of the press pool as an institution,' Rao wrote. 'But the AP cannot adversely possess a seat in the Oval Office, no matter how long its tradition of access.' The panel did not pause the portion of McFadden's order restoring AP's access to the East Room, noting that it does not share the 'hallmarks' of spaces like the Oval Office. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard said that participation in the press pool or broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on a news organization's viewpoint 'until now.' 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' the Obama appointee wrote. The Justice Department had argued that the spaces from which the White House sought to exclude the AP are not a press facility like the Brady Press Briefing Room and are intended for the president's personal use. Plus, presidents have the 'personal autonomy' to decide to whom they reveal their minds. Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, argued that the White House can't single out an outlet for exclusion from the pool based solely on its viewpoints, though he acknowledged that it's the president's prerogative to revoke AP's daily spot in the press pool. After McFadden ruled in the AP's favor, the White House removed the spot typically reserved for wire services from the press pool, instead making those outlets eligible for selection as part of the pool's daily print-journalist rotation. Patrick Maks, a spokesperson for AP, said in a statement that 'we are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The Hill requested comment from the White House.
