
Layoffs, closures and gaps in oversight expected after hundreds of DOJ grants are canceled
A deaf mother trying to escape her abusive husband came to a domestic violence shelter seeking help, but she couldn't communicate fluently with American Sign Language. Shelter workers contacted Activating Change, a group that provides sign language interpreters who are trained to help people experiencing trauma.
Over the course of the year in the shelter, the woman worked with the interpreter to file for divorce, gain custody of her children, heal with therapy, and find a job and housing.'Our superpower is adaptability, and having access to services like Activating Change allows us to have that,' said Marjie George, developmental director at the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Services shelter.
Activating Change, which helps people with disabilities navigate the criminal justice system, was one of hundreds of organizations that received a notice on April 22 that the Department of Justice was canceling grants they had received through the Office of Justice Programs. More than 350 grants initially worth more than $800 million were ended midstream, sparking layoffs and program closures.
The disabilities nonprofit had to lay off nearly half its 26 workers after the government canceled $3 million in direct grants, about $1 million of which had already been spent, and ended pass-through grants from other organizations.
Amy Solomon, former assistant attorney general who oversaw the Office of Justice Programs and now a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice, said the cuts touched on every aspect of the department's portfolio.
'This is highly unusual,' Solomon said. 'You expect any administration to have their own priorities, and to implement that in future budget years and with future awards. You would not expect … grants that have already been granted, obligated or awarded to be pulled back.'The Office of Justice Programs typically awards nearly $4 billion in grants annually.
It was unclear how much money it would take back since some rescinded grants were initially awarded as far back as 2021. Grantees were locked out of the financial system a few days before they were due to be reimbursed for already completed work.
How the Justice Department planned to reallocate whatever money is returned was also unclear. Some came from dedicated pots of funding, including from the Victims of Crime Act, which collects fines and penalties in federal cases for programs serving crime victims.
A department spokesperson did not respond to questions about the cuts. The cancellation notices noted that grant holders had 30 days to appeal. As of Friday, the department had reversed course on a handful of grants, restoring some funding.
Law enforcement priorities The cancellation letters obtained by The Associated Press explained the cuts by saying the department had changed its priorities to focus on 'more directly supporting certain law enforcement operations, combatting violent crime, protecting American children, and supporting American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.'
But advocates, researchers and leaders in criminal justice said many grants served those purposes. Some cuts seemed to target programs that were started by or were a priority under the Biden administration, such as grants for violence intervention programs. But others appeared to target priorities under Trump's first administration, including elder abuse and financial exploitation.
While cities and law enforcement agencies largely escaped direct cuts, many are feeling the impacts of cancellations to partner programs. In a scathing briefing Wednesday, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin noted nearly $13 million in ongoing program funding to the state was canceled.'To say, 'We're going to cut programs that protect people from bias, that help people with opioid addiction, that keep guns off our streets' — it's irresponsible, it's reckless, it's dangerous, and it's going to get people killed,' Platkin said.
In Baltimore, anti-violence organization Roca is looking for other funding sources after losing about $1 million in grant dollars. The program targets at-risk young men, including gunshot survivors, who receive mentoring, job training and life coaching. It has almost certainly contributed to Baltimore's recent reductions in homicides, city officials and participants have said. 'I'm living proof that it works,' said Sheldon Smith-Gray, a graduate and current employee of the program, which he credits with turning his life around, even after his cousin was killed last year.
Cuts were made to research organizations that create standards for training or data collection and provide resources for smaller law enforcement agencies. Three grants to the Police Executive Research Forum were eliminated, including a study of police plans and responses to protests to develop practices for preventing civil disturbances. And the National Policing Institute lost grants that provided technical assistance to rural police departments and support for improving relationships between police and communities of color.
Mandated functions A handful of the canceled grants paid for services intertwined with government functions mandated by law, including required audits under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Impact Justice, which lost millions, had created and managed the PREA Resource Center for more than a decade.
The center has had a hand in nearly every aspect of the implementation and management of the federal regulations from the online audit platform, auditor certification, and developing trainings for auditors, prison officials and others.
'It's a collaborative relationship, but we are the ones that execute the work and have the systems and maintain the systems,' said Michela Bowman, vice president of Impact Justice and senior adviser to the PREA Resource Center. She explained that the center designed and owns the audit software and data collection systems.'I can't tell you what the DOJ plans to do in the alternate,' said Alex Busansky, president and founder of Impact Justice.
Safety and victim services Nonprofits that provide services to crime victims also lost grants. Advocates say many cuts will impact public safety, like the elimination of funding for the national crime victims hotline or the loss of a grant to the International Association of Forensic Nurses to provide technical assistance and training to SANE— Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners— in underserved areas.'It's very important for a survivor to be able to access a rape exam done by a SANE nurse.
It's vital,' said Ilse Knecht, director of policy and advocacy at The Joyful Heart Foundation, and who oversees the agency's efforts to track and combat a national backlog in untested forensic rape kits.
Grants that directly address the backlog seemed to be safe for now, but she said services offered to survivors are essential.'When we don't keep this system that has been set up to keep victims safe and make them want to participate in the criminal justice system … we are really doing a disservice,' she added. 'How is this helping public safety?'For Activating Change, the cuts meant an immediate reduction in services.
Its leaders rejected the idea their services don't align with federal priorities.'It is a catastrophic blow to our organization,' said Nancy Smith, the organization's executive director. 'But also to the safety net for people with disabilities and deaf people who've experienced violent crime in our country.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
18 minutes ago
- India.com
Israel Says Hamas Chief Found Dead in Tunnel; Here's How Mohammed Sinwar Was Hunted Down
New Delhi: Israel has confirmed the death of Hamas chief Mohammed Sinwar, the elusive younger brother of Yahya Sinwar. His body was found under the rubble of a tunnel beneath Gaza's European Hospital in Khan Younis two weeks after a deadly airstrike targeted the site. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced on June 8 that the body was positively identified after forensic verification. Mohammed Sinwar was believed to be one of Hamas's last key surviving field leaders, who was operating in coordination with two other feared such persons as his brother Yahya Sinwar and the group's military mastermind Mohammad Deif. Both were also declared killed by Israel in recent operations. The May 13 strike that killed Mohammed Sinwar had targeted what the IDF described as an underground 'command-and-control centre' beneath the hospital. The attack followed a major development: Hamas had released Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander just one day earlier. Now, speculation is growing that Sinwar's presence at the hospital may have been connected to internal strategic shifts within Hamas. The airstrike itself was devastating. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 28 Palestinians were killed and more than 50 wounded. But the strategic prize for Israel came only later, after days of uncertainty, when Sinwar's body was recovered and confirmed. On the 600th day of the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the floor at the Knesset and did not hold back. In a speech, he declared, 'We changed the face of the Middle East. We entered Gaza with force. We eliminated tens of thousands of terrorists. And we eliminated Mohammad Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar and now, Mohammed Sinwar.' This moment marks a symbolic victory for Israel's ongoing operation to decapitate Hamas's top command. Yahya Sinwar, once the face of Hamas's political strategy, was confirmed killed in October during a southern Gaza raid. Mohammad Deif, the ghost-like military chief of Hamas's Qassam Brigades, was reportedly taken out in a precision strike, though Hamas has yet to acknowledge his death officially. With all three figures now believed dead, military analysts say Hamas is facing its most serious leadership vacuum since its rise in Gaza. Israeli officials caution that the organisation still has deep reserves, both in terms of manpower and ideology. Mohammed Sinwar's legacy was one of secrecy, tunnels and brutal tactics. His end, like his rise, happened underground. And in Gaza, where shadows still move beneath crumbling streets, the war is far from over.


Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard
Donald Trump's deployment of California's National Guard marks the first time in decades that a US president openly defied a state governor and sent troops to an emergency zone. The National Guard is a reserve military rooted in the 17th century local militias created in the American colonies before the country's founding. Since then the guard has had multiple responsibilities: domestic disaster relief and security, homeland defense and prevention of civil unrest; and acting as reserve forces for US military deployments overseas. Presidential orders to deploy guardsmen domestically are not uncommon. But clashes between a president and governor over deployments or the lack thereof, such as during the US Capitol riot by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021 while he was still in office have been rare. The White House said Trump relied on a seldom used law, known as Title 10, that permits National Guard federalization in times of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." California Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision "purposefully inflammatory." But Trump's order proceeded, and the guard troops were on LA streets Sunday. "This is the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed the National Guard without a request by a state governor," Kenneth Roth, a longtime former Human Rights Watch executive director, posted on X. "Then it was Johnson protecting civil rights protesters. Now it's Trump creating a spectacle so he can continue his immigration raids." Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice warned of a "shocking abuse of power" by Trump, whose memorandum authorizes federalization of National Guard troops "at locations where protests against functions are occurring or are likely to occur." "Trump has authorized the deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity might occur," Goitein posted on X. "That is a huge red flag." A landmark civil rights moment led to a National Guard clash between a president and a segregationist governor. With demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr on a five-day march from Selma to Alabama's capital Montgomery, governor George Wallace pledged National Guard security but then reneged. The U-turn incensed Johnson who, in defiance of Wallace, called up the guard. The march was protected by thousands of Army soldiers and federalized guard members. When the Little Rock school system was ordered desegregated, Arkansas' pro-segregationist governor Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to surround a high school and prevent nine Black students from entering. President Dwight Eisenhower bristled at the standoff and told Faubus the guard must maintain order so the Black students could attend. Instead, Faubus pulled the guardsmen, leaving security to local forces. Eisenhower issued an executive order federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered 1,000 US Army troops to join them. Perhaps no anti-Vietnam war protest was more pivotal than at Ohio's Kent State University, where students slammed Richard Nixon's war expansion. As unrest swelled, the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others. The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reforms regarding how the guard handles civil unrest and use of force. The massive hurricane left much of New Orleans underwater, leading to the largest-ever peacetime deployment of the National Guard. But critics accused then-president George W Bush of favoring a militaristic response over humanitarian relief. Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, warned that many among the thousands of National Guard and federal troops were battle-tested Iraq war veterans. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," she reportedly said. June 1, 2020 saw a brutal crackdown on demonstrators following the police murder of African-American George Floyd. With people aggressively protesting near the White House, the National Guard joined police to maintain order. Flash grenades and tear gas were deployed. Unlike in the nation's 50 states, the DC National Guard is under direct command of the US president, who at the time was Trump. mlm/st
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
John Hancock: America's unsung founding father and revolutionary mark
It is unlikely Hancock will be restored to the top tier of the founders, but remembering him better could reap dividends NYT JOHN HANCOCK: First to Sign, First to Invest in America's Independence by Willard Sterne Randall Published by Dutton 272 pages $34 When John Hancock scrawled his enormous signature at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence, it was a brave act; capture by the British might have meant execution. The musical 1776 has Hancock claiming that he wrote it out supersized 'so Fat George in London can read it without his glasses!' But despite his courage, Hancock remains a little hard to see. Unlike Adams and Jefferson, he did not leave extensive writings. Unlike Washington, he did not play a leading military role (though he longed to). Unlike all three of them, he did not make it to the presidency, but served as a precursor of sorts in the Continental Congress. These deficits have left their mark. Historians generally neglect Hancock when they write collective biographies of the founders, and there are no major monuments to him. There will be 250 statues in Donald Trump's National Garden of American Heroes that is supposed to be completed by July 4 next year. The actress Ingrid Bergman and the Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek have made the cut, but not the American who did more than most to define Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence may have been composed by a different founder, but, as the historian Willard Sterne Randall writes in John Hancock, it was Hancock who led the Second Continental Congress to appoint the committee that drafted it. He also raised funds for the Continental Army, oversaw shipbuilding efforts for the Navy and kept Congress together even as it fled Philadelphia when the British came too close for comfort. For all these reasons, it is welcome news to have a biography that presents a compelling case for a reappraisal. Randall tells the story of an 18th-century American who seemed preordained to follow the path of his father and grandfather into the ministry, but then swerved in another direction when his father died and a wealthy uncle offered to adopt him. At times, the narrative structure resembles the twists and turns of Henry Fielding's 1749 novel, Tom Jones, about a foundling with a hearty appetite for life. Tutored by his uncle, Hancock proved to have an exceptional nose for business. In the 1760s, as relations deteriorated between England and its American colonies, Hancock was on the front lines as a well-informed importer who understood the ways in which local tempers were flaring over tariffs on goods like paper and tea. As the English tightened the screws, he extended lines of credit to Boston's lesser merchants, a financial tie that meant the Massachusetts business community moved in lockstep with him when he wanted to pressure the Crown with a boycott. Randall also effectively conveys the real affection that bonded Hancock and his fellow Bostonians, whom he helped with purchases of firewood during particularly cold winters and fireworks displays when there was happier news to celebrate. His philanthropy earned him many friends, but his expensive tastes grated on more abstemious leaders like Samuel Adams. Hancock was elected to office, first locally, and then, when he assumed the presidency of the Continental Congress in May 1775, as a leader of the not-quite-United States. In 1777, exhausted, he requested a leave, and returned to Boston for a spell. After that, he never completely regained his national stature, although he served capably in local offices and helped Massachusetts survive its own internal fissures, including Shays' Rebellion in the 1780s. If the early Revolutionary period represented Hancock's apogee, he stayed true to the patriot cause for many years after. Unlike another financial genius who was rising at that moment — Alexander Hamilton — he was suspicious of a strong central government and yet he worked to secure the approval of the US Constitution in Massachusetts. Weakened by gout, he began to fade just as the country was coming together. For all of these reasons, Hamilton gets the $10 bill and the musical. Randall handles the arc of Hancock's life efficiently, but there remain unasked questions relating to slavery. There is some evidence that Hancock, as the governor of Massachusetts, impeded the extradition of people who had escaped bondage in the South and that he endorsed compensation for forced labour. The author does not investigate these subjects, nor does he linger over the way the peculiar institution might have helped bolster Hancock's inherited fortune. It is unlikely Hancock will be restored to the top tier of the founders, but remembering him better could reap dividends. With his financial acumen, propensity for dramatic gestures and flamboyant signature, he might appeal to the right, and a certain Sharpie-wielding president. With his respect for due process and democracy, and his direct support of those in need, he also represents values that might be associated with the left. To bring a divided people closer together, as he did in 1776, would be a good way to honour a founder who has been waiting a long time for his close-up.