Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON: Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research.
The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees.
'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.'
The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants.
'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added.
Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts.
This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts.
'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.'
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal.
'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.'
In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities.
'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement.
The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.'
'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause— 'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'— provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
23 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
US intel says strikes did not set back Iran's nuclear program despite Trump claims
A classified preliminary US intelligence report has concluded that American strikes on Iran set back Tehran's nuclear program by just a few months – rather than destroying it as claimed by President Donald Trump. US media on Tuesday cited people familiar with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) findings as saying the weekend strikes did not fully eliminate Iran's centrifuges or stockpile of enriched uranium. The aerial bombardments and missile strikes sealed off entrances to some facilities without destroying underground buildings, according to the report. US media coverage of the DIA assessment appeared to anger Trump, who insisted news outlets like CNN and The New York Times were out to 'demean' the military strike by saying it only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. 'THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!' Trump posted in all caps on his Truth Social platform. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the authenticity of the DIA assessment but said it was 'flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked' in an attempt to undermine Trump and discredit the military operation. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration,' Leavitt posted on X. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steven Witkoff, appeared on Fox News to trumpet the White House version. 'The reporting out there that in some ways suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous,' he said Tuesday. Witkoff repeated the assertion that the nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo had been 'obliterated.' 'All three of those had most if not all of the centrifuges damaged or destroyed,' he said. 'In a way it will be almost impossible for them to resurrect that program for -- in my view and in many other experts' views who have seen the raw data, it will take a period of years.' US B-2 bombers hit two Iranian nuclear sites with massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, while a guided missile submarine struck a third with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump called the strikes a 'spectacular military success' and said they had 'obliterated' the nuclear sites, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington's forces had 'devastated the Iranian nuclear program.' General Dan Caine, the top US military officer, has offered a more cautious tone, saying the strikes caused 'extremely severe damage' to the Iranian facilities. Iran's government said Tuesday it had 'taken the necessary measures' to ensure the continuation of its nuclear program. 'Plans for restarting (the facilities) have been prepared in advance, and our strategy is to ensure that production and services are not disrupted,' the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, said in a statement aired on state television. An adviser to Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei meanwhile said his country still had stocks of enriched uranium and that 'the game is not over.' Israel launched an unprecedented air campaign targeting Iranian nuclear sites, scientists and top military brass on June 13 in a bid to set back Tehran's nuclear efforts. Trump had spent weeks pursuing a diplomatic path to replace the nuclear deal with Tehran that he tore up during his first term in 2018, but he ultimately decided to take military action. The US operation was massive, with Caine saying it involved more than 125 US aircraft including stealth bombers, fighters, aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.
Al Arabiya
39 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
US Rep. LaMonica McIver to be arraigned on assault charges stemming from immigration center visit
US Rep. LaMonica McIver is set to be arraigned on federal charges Wednesday, accused of assaulting and interfering with immigration officers outside a New Jersey detention center during a congressional oversight visit at the facility. She has said she plans to fight the charges. McIver, a Democrat, was charged in a complaint by interim US Attorney Alina Habba, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump, following the May 9 visit to Newark's Delaney Hall, a privately owned, 1,000-bed facility that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses as a detention center. This month, she was indicted on three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officials. Habba said two counts carry a maximum sentence of up to eight years in prison. The third has a maximum of one year. McIver's lawyer, former US Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman, said in a statement that she would challenge the allegations 'head-on in court.' The indictment is the latest development in a legal–political drama that has seen the Trump administration take Democratic officials from New Jersey's largest city to court amid the president's ongoing immigration crackdown and Democrats' efforts to respond. The prosecution is a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress for allegations other than fraud or corruption. During the same visit to the detention center, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested on a trespassing charge that was later dropped. Baraka is suing Habba over what he called a 'malicious prosecution.' A nearly two-minute video clip released by the Homeland Security Department shows McIver at the facility inside a chain-link fence just before Baraka's arrest on the other side of the barrier, where other people were protesting. McIver and uniformed officials go through the gate, and she joins others shouting that they should circle the mayor. The video shows McIver in a tightly packed group of people and officers. At one point, her left elbow and then her right elbow push into an officer wearing a dark face covering and an olive green uniform emblazoned with the word 'Police.' It is not clear from police bodycam video if the contact was intentional, incidental, or the result of jostling in the chaotic scene. The complaint alleges that she slammed her forearm into an agent and then tried to restrain the agent by grabbing him. The indictment also says she placed her arms around the mayor to try to stop his arrest and says again that she slammed her forearm into and grabbed an agent. Democrats, including New Jersey Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, who were with McIver at the detention center that day, have criticized the arrest and disputed the charges. Members of Congress are legally authorized to go into federal immigration facilities as part of their oversight powers, even without notice. Congress passed a 2019 appropriations bill spelling out that authority. McIver, 39, first came to Congress in September in a special election after the death of Rep. Donald Payne Jr. left a vacancy in the 10th District. She was then elected to a full term in November. A Newark native, she was president of the Newark City Council from 2022 to 2024 and worked in the city's public schools before that.
Al Arabiya
39 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is expected to be released from jail only to be taken into immigration custody
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is expected to be released from jail in Tennessee on Wednesday only to be taken into immigration custody. The Salvadoran national, whose mistaken deportation became a flashpoint in the fight over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, has been in jail since he was returned to the US on June 7, facing two counts of human smuggling. On Sunday, US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled that Abrego Garcia does not have to remain in jail ahead of that trial. On Wednesday afternoon, she will set his conditions of release and allow him to go, according to her order. However, both his defense attorneys and prosecutors have said they expect him to be taken into custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement as soon as he is released on the criminal charges. In addition, federal prosecutors are appealing Holmes' release order. Among other things, they expressed concern in a motion filed on Sunday that Abrego Garcia could be deported before he faces trial. Holmes has said previously that she won't step between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. 'It is up to them to decide whether they want to deport Abrego Garcia or prosecute him.' Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. At his detention hearing, Homeland Security Special Agent Peter Joseph testified that he did not begin investigating Abrego Garcia until April of this year. Holmes said in her Sunday ruling that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. He has lived for more than a decade in Maryland, where he and his American wife are raising three children. However, Holmes referred to her own ruling as 'little more than an academic exercise,' noting that ICE plans to detain him. It is less clear what will happen after that. Although he can't be deported to El Salvador–where an immigration judge found he faces a credible threat from gangs–he is still deportable to a third country as long as that country agrees to not send him to El Salvador.
