More than 20 U.S. attorneys-general sue Trump administration over funding cuts
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.'
Job cuts at U.S. FDA raise red flags over safety of food imports to Canada
Opinion: The Trump administration's cuts to the U.S. State Department are a threat to Canada
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 U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a US$11-million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated a US$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
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
California official criticized for appearing to call on gangs to intervene in immigration raids
In this Jan. 10, 2018, file photo, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents gather before serving an employment audit notice at a 7-Eleven convenience store, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File) CUDAHY, Calif. — The vice mayor of a tiny Southern California city is under fire after appearing to call on street gangs to organize in the face of immigration sweeps by federal agents in Los Angeles. In a video post on social media that's since been deleted, Cynthia Gonzalez, vice mayor of Cudahy, said she wanted to know where all of the gang members were 'at in Los Angeles.' 'You guys are always tagging everything up, claiming hood, and now that your hood's being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain't a peep out of you,' Gonzalez said, using a disparaging term often aimed at Mexican men who are members of street gangs. She further referenced '18th Street' and 'Florence,' two infamous street gangs, and questioned why gang members were not protesting or speaking up about the immigration raids. 'We're out there fighting our turf, protecting our turf, protecting our people and, like, where you at?' she said. The video seemed to suggest Gonzalez was calling on gang leaders to 'help out and organize' as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies participate in the Trump administration's stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security called Gonzalez's comments 'despicable.' 'She calls for criminal gangs — including the vicious 18th street gang — to commit violence against our brave U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement law enforcement,' the department said in a post on X that included Gonzalez's video. 'This kind of garbage has led to a more than 500% increase in assaults against our U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement law enforcement officers. Secretary Noem has been clear: If you assault a federal officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Gonzalez did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The city of Cudahy said in a statement Tuesday it was aware of the video. 'The comments made by the Vice Mayor reflect her personal views and do not represent the views or official position of the City of Cudahy,' the statement read. 'The City will not be providing further comment.' Cudahy is a Los Angeles suburb with 22,000 residents, about 10 miles (16.09 kilometres) south of downtown LA. The Associated Press
National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
NATO chief gives Trump a new nickname: 'Daddy'
Article content He's already the world's most powerful man, but U.S. President Donald Trump got a new nickname on Wednesday from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — the 'Daddy'. Article content The two leaders were joshing ahead of the NATO summit when Trump reprised his analogy of warring countries Iran and Israel being like squabbling children. Article content Article content Article content That was a reference to Trump's expletive-laced outburst as he set off for the NATO summit, visibly angry at the prospect of the Iran-Israel ceasefire breaking down. Article content The two countries have been 'fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing, do you understand that?' the president told reporters at the White House. Article content Trump chuckled at Rutte's reference, admitting: 'Everyone said 'Well, you have to use a certain word'.' Article content Article content Rutte has pulled out all the stops to keep Trump onside for what could have been a tricky summit, with the U.S. president unhappy at spending billions defending Europe's NATO allies. Article content From keeping the summit short, to arranging an overnight stay at the king's royal palace, Rutte has lived up to his own nickname — the 'Trump Whisperer.' Article content Article content Pressed by reporters on whether his praise of — and moniker for — Trump was demeaning coming from an alliance secretary general, Rutte replied: 'No, I don't think so.' Article content Article content 'I think it's a bit of a question of taste,' Rutte said, calling Trump a 'good friend' who 'deserves all the praise' — be it for taking 'decisive action' against Iran, or forcing NATO allies to ramp up their defence spending. Article content
CTV News
3 hours ago
- CTV News
New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary. Here's how it works
A voter casts a ballot at the Church of the Heavenly Rest in New York on election day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) NEW YORK — New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary election, a system that takes some explaining, even for people who have used it before. Ranked choice is based on a simple premise: Democracy works better if people aren't forced to make an all-or-nothing choice with their vote. Rather than pick just one candidate, voters get to rank several in order of preference. Even if a voter's top choice doesn't have enough support to win, their rankings of other candidates still play a role in determining the victor. The system is more complex than a traditional election, making it tough to forecast a winner. It could also take longer to get results. How does it work? In New York City's version, voters get to rank up to five candidates, from first to last, on the ballot. If one candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters — more than 50 per cent — that person wins the race outright, just like in a traditional election. If nobody hits that threshold, ranked choice analysis kicks in. Vote tabulation is done by computer in rounds. After the first round, the candidate in last place — the candidate ranked No. 1 by the fewest amount of people — is eliminated. The computer then looks at the ballots cast by people who ranked that candidate first, to see who they ranked second. Those people's votes are then redistributed to their second choices. That process then repeats. As more candidates are eliminated, voters' third, fourth and even fifth choices could potentially come into play. Rounds continue until there are only two candidates left. The one with the most votes wins. How long will this take? The computerized process of tabulating votes takes little time, but it doesn't start right away. Polls closed at 9 p.m. Tuesday. The ranked choice tabulations, however, won't start until July 1 because the city needs to wait for the arrival of mail-in ballots. The July 1 tabulation could confirm a victory for Zohran Mamdani, who had a commanding lead over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on election night, but the result won't be official. Further rounds of ranked choice analysis will be done as additional absentee ballots come in until the board certifies the election July 15. This was the second time New York City has used ranked choice in a mayoral primary. The first time, in 2021, things went haywire when elections officials neglected to clear test data from the tabulation program. That led to an inaccurate vote tally being reported until officials realized the error. Why do people like ranked choice? One benefit is that nobody 'wastes' their vote by picking an unpopular candidate as their first choice. Voters can rank someone they like No. 1, even if they suspect the candidate doesn't stand a chance. If that person is eliminated, voters still get a say in who wins based on their other rankings. Another benefit is that it's tough for someone to get elected without broad support. In a traditional election, it's possible for someone with fringe political views to win in a crowded field of candidates, even if they are deeply disliked by a majority of voters. That's theoretically less likely in a ranked choice system. A candidate could get the largest share of first-choice votes but still lose to someone who is the second or third choice of a large number of people. What are the negatives? The system is tough to grasp. It requires voters to do more research. It also makes races less predictable. Trust could also be a potential problem. Ordinarily, candidates, the public and news organizations have a easy time knowing who is leading a race as the vote starts to roll in. Under the ranked choice system, what you see on election night isn't necessarily the way the race is going to turn out. That's a challenge for news organizations, like The Associated Press, that analyze vote tallies and attempt to report a winner before the count is complete. There may be instances when candidates who seem to have a comfortable lead in first-place votes on election night lose because relatively few voters rank them as their second or third choice. That could lead to people questioning the results, including whether the process of redistributing votes has been done accurately by computer. David B. Caruso, The Associated Press
