Ronald McDonald House in Morgantown largely unfazed by state funding cut
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (WBOY) — The Ronald McDonald House in Morgantown says that recent reductions in state funding announced last week should not have a significant impact on their operations.
On Friday, Governor Morrisey's office released a list of items the governor had vetoed from the state's 2026 financial plan. Among those was a 60% reduction in state funding for the Ronald McDonald House of Morgantown, amounting to $3 million, and a 73% reduction for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), totalling $800,000.
On Monday, 12 News was able to speak with the CEO of the Morgantown and Pittsburgh Ronald McDonald houses, Eleanor Reigel, who said that the $3 million loss in 2026 will not significantly impact their services or operations.
'First and foremost, I want to express our appreciation for the funding. It takes the community to support a mission to our extent, and the West Virginia legislature and Governor Morrissey has indicated that that support is critical and needed,' Reigel said. 'We don't receive annual operating funds from the state, so this is [for] a specific project.'
These items were vetoed from West Virginia's 2026 budget
The project in question is a renovation and expansion of the Morgantown Ronald McDonald House that began in September of 2023, and will add 11 new rooms once finished. Reigel said that the remodelling is nearly done, and the fact that the house has a number of different donors should lessen the impact of reduced state funding.
'Although we're close to the end of the construction, as most nonprofits will tell you, every dollar counts,' Reigel said.
For more updates on the Ronald McDonald House of Morgantown, you can follow the house on Facebook.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Why EchoStar Bounced Back Today
EchoStar issued a press release touting its new 5G-enabled tablet. The FCC recently threatened EchoStar's spectrum holdings, alleging it hadn't been building its 5G network fast enough. Elon Musk's public spat with Donald Trump may also, believe it or not, account for the rise, since Musk's SpaceX wants EchoStar's spectrum. 10 stocks we like better than EchoStar › EchoStar (NASDAQ: SATS) shares were bouncing back today, up 10% as of 2 p.m. ET. EchoStar's shares have been under severe pressure since the beginning of the year, but especially in the past week. That's because management decided to not make two separate interest payments on its debt, as it awaits a decision from the FCC regarding its spectrum. Management has a 30-day grace period to do so before the company is technically in default. The spectrum debate has to do with the pace of EchoStar's 5G rollout, and is also indirectly linked up with Elon Musk's SpaceX. Back in May, the new Trump-appointed FCC director sent a letter to EchoStar, stating that the extension it was granted to complete its 5G network buildout by the prior administration was under review. EchoStar had purchased valuable spectrum years ago, on the terms that it would build a 5G network to increase competition in the industry. However, EchoStar's buildout has been slow, which is perhaps not surprising, given its declining legacy business in satellite TV. In an interesting wrinkle, Musk's SpaceX had led a campaign to win more satellite spectrum for its own services, including the spectrum held by EchoStar. That may have played a part in the FCC's initiation of a review, given Musk's ties to the Trump administration. However, late yesterday, EchoStar issued a press release introducing its new Boost Mobile Celero tablet, the Celero5G TAB, a low-cost tablet that takes advantage of EchoStar's 5G network. While normally not that significant, the announcement of a new 5G product could go a ways toward making EchoStar's case to the FCC that it deserves to keep its spectrum. Furthermore, it appears Musk's relationship with the Trump administration is now on the outs, given Musk's storm of posts today criticizing the administration and Republicans in Congress for the deficit expansion in the "Big, Beautiful Bill" making its way through Congress. If Musk and Trump have a falling out, then the FCC may not aggressively pursue EchoStar's spectrum on behalf of SpaceX, if SpaceX's campaign was in fact a motivating factor in initiating the review. EchoStar's stock has been punished severely, so it could make for a turnaround play if in fact it's able to deploy 5G to more areas and grow its low-cost Boost Mobile offerings. However, its high debt, declining legacy satellite TV business, and unresolved battle with the FCC remain big risks. Betting on a big recovery is a highly risky proposition, and only appropriate for speculators at this point. Before you buy stock in EchoStar, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and EchoStar wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Billy Duberstein and/or his clients have no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why EchoStar Bounced Back Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands DOGE big wins in Social Security, records cases
The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) two major victories in its expanding legal battle over drastic efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy. In two separate emergency rulings issued simultaneously, the court lifted a block on DOGE personnel accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit. Both rulings appeared to be along the Supreme Court's ideological lines, with the court's three Democratic-appointed justices publicly dissenting. The decisions come as President Trump's relationship with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, the face of DOGE for months, publicly imploded Thursday. His administration continues to defend DOGE's work in the courts. In the Social Security case, the justices lifted a Maryland-based federal judge's order blocking DOGE from snooping around the SSA's systems that contain personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, bank data, and earnings history. The majority did not explain the reasoning, only saying that the 'SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency record' under the present circumstances. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the Trump administration hadn't met the court's high bar for emergency relief, accusing her colleagues of 'jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking.' 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration,' Jackson wrote. 'I would proceed without fear or favor to require DOGE and the Government to do what all other litigants must do to secure a stay from this Court,' she continued. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented, but she did not join the duo's opinion. The challenge to DOGE's ability to poke around in the SSA's systems came from a coalition of government unions, backed by the left-leaning legal group Democracy Forward, that claimed DOGE's unfettered access to the sensitive data ran afoul of privacy laws and the SSA's own rules and regulations. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order allowed the SSA to provide DOGE with access to redacted or anonymized data and records, but it required DOGE agents to receive the necessary training for those systems. She wrote that DOGE's efforts to slim down the federal bureaucracy weren't the problem at hand, but rather 'how they want to do the work.' Hollander is an appointee of former President Obama. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had argued that her preliminary injunction undermined DOGE's mission to streamline and modernize the government while rooting out waste and fraud. He criticized the nationwide relief as a 'now-familiar theme,' alluding to several Justice Department emergency appeals challenging universal injunctions — a practice the justices heard arguments about last month in the administration's appeal of an order blocking Trump's bid to narrow birthright citizenship. 'The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,' Sauer wrote in the government's emergency application. The Supreme Court's second emergency decision stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DOGE. The government had asked the justices to overturn a judge's order allowing limited discovery into whether DOGE is an 'agency,' which would dictate whether it's subject to FOIA requests. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of Obama, directed the release of all 'recommendations' DOGE made to various federal agencies, in addition to other internal documents. He also ordered a deposition of acting DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason. By agreeing to wipe that order, the Supreme Court's decision marks a major victory for the Trump administration's efforts to keep DOGE's inner workings behind the veil. The majority said Cooper's order was 'not appropriately tailored' to whether DOGE was an agency. 'Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court wrote in its unsigned ruling. The three Democratic-appointed justices again publicly dissented, but they didn't offer an explanation. Sauer argued that DOGE is a 'presidential advisory body' housed within the Executive Office of the President — not an agency. He said that Cooper's order would 'significantly distract' from DOGE's mission to identify and eliminate 'fraud, waste and abuse' within the federal government, calling the discovery ordered 'extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive.' 'That order turns FOIA on its head,' Sauer claimed, 'effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies.' The legal challenge was mounted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which argued that the public has a right to know about DOGE's 'secretive operations.' It is one of many designed to test whether DOGE must respond to FOIA requests. Several legal battles linked to DOGE have reached the Supreme Court, but these two cases are the first where DOGE is a respondent. Updated at 5:19 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
2 days ago
- Axios
DOGE given access to Americans' Social Security data by Supreme Court
DOGE employees can access millions of Americans' sensitive Social Security data, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a party-line decision. Why it matters: The ruling is a win for other Trump administration, which has charged the Department of Government Efficiency with rooting out alleged waste and fraud at the Social Security Administration. The unsigned majority opinion overturns a 9-6 decision from the entire Fourth Circuit that upheld a lower court's decision to temporarily block DOGE from accessing the data. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, who issued the initial stay, had questioned why DOGE needed "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems." Friction point: The Supreme Court's three Democratically-appointed justices voted to prevent DOGE from accessing the Social Security data until lower courts have had a chance to resolve legal challenges. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent joined by Justice Sonya Sotomayor that chastised the Supreme Court for once again issuing an emergency order in favor of the Trump administration without the benefit of briefing or oral argument. What they're saying:"In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," Jackson wrote.
