Billions in grants for summer school, English instruction delayed during Trump administration review
The move leaves states and schools in limbo as they budget for programs this summer and in the upcoming school year, introducing new uncertainty about when — or if — they will receive the money. It also sets the stage for a clash with Democrats, who say the administration is flouting the law by holding back money Congress appropriated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother "intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child." It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Speaker Johnson says Republicans will expand majority in 2026 election
Speaker Johnson says Republicans will expand majority in 2026 election House Speaker Mike Johnson said he expects Republicans to maintain or widen their majority in Congress in 2026. Straight Arrow News
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
