Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states.
It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated.
Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations.
The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued.
The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely.
The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a statement in April.
The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes.
The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, 'Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback.
Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers.
Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit.
Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step' of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled.
Representatives for HHS, the CDC, the cities and Harris County did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Beloved American toy company sends harsh message to workers
Beloved American toy company sends harsh message to workers originally appeared on TheStreet. There's been considerable debate this year over tariffs. Proponents argue they're the best way to reinvigorate US manufacturing activity, while opponents say they're a costly tax that will push inflation higher and crimp profits, leading to job losses. The reality may wind up somewhere in the middle, but for increasingly more workers the tariff fallout is already taking a toll. The toymaker Hasbro, one of the largest U.S. toy companies, has announced it will lay off 150 workers in a cost-cutting move designed to offset some of the bite associated with increased import costs. Hasbro's decision continues an alarming trend of layoffs. Through May this year, over 696,000 people have been laid off, up 80% from last year. The move is the latest by Hasbro to keep its business in the black amid a host of challenges associated with tariffs impacting its bottom line. Many companies pulled some imports forward this year to avoid President Trump's tariff announcements. Still, that inventory is expected to have been mostly sold to customers soon, increasing the likelihood of layoffs and price increases. The President enacted 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico in February, but the tariffs placed on China have dealt the biggest blow to the toy industry in February, a 10% tariff was imposed on Chinese imports, which increased to 20% in March. In April, an additional 34% tariff was levied on China, kickstarting a trade war that, at its peak, lifted US-China tariffs to 145% and China tariffs on US goods to 125%; essentially shutting down trade between the two countries. In May, the tit-for-tat tariff tussle de-escalated to allow for trade negotiations. However, 30% tariffs remain on China, and coupled with tariffs enacted during Donald Trump's first term, Chinese tariffs exceed 50%. The tariffs will likely push costs higher on many items, given that the US has increasingly turned to low-cost China as a source of goods since China's admission into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Many industries, from clothing to car parts and electronics, have been hard hit, but toymakers are among those businesses that have suffered the most significant blow. According to S&P Global, Mattel and Hasbro source 50% and 40% of their toys from mainland China, despite moves in recent years to shift production elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, Hasbro discussed the impact of tariffs during their recent first-quarter earnings conference calls with shareholders.'Ultimately, tariffs translate into higher consumer prices, potential job losses as we adjust to absorb increased costs and reduced profits for our shareholders,' said Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks in April. S&P Global doesn't expect the toy industry to grow this year, so demand isn't likely to insulate Hasbro from the hit to its profit margin delivered by tariffs. Most companies have said that mitigating higher import taxes will require three major moves: supplier concessions, higher customer prices, and lower Q1, Hasbro said tariff impacts would range between $100 million and $300 million in 2025, with most of the effects felt during the final two quarters of 2025. After accounting for efforts to offset tariffs, Hasbro expects them to ding profits by $60 million to $180 million. Hasbro plans to shave $1 billion in costs over the next few years, including via job cuts. Since 2023, Hasbro has reduced its headcount by 1,900 workers. The latest round of cuts involves 150 workers, or roughly 3% of Hasbro's employees. However, the job losses aren't likely to fully absorb the tariffs hit. 'Targeted pricing actions remain likely,' said CEO Chris Cocks on Hasbro's conference call. 'Even with Hasbro's relative strength and flexibility, logistics are becoming more complex…Ultimately, tariffs translate into higher consumer prices, potential job losses as we adjust to absorb increased costs and reduced profits for our shareholders.' The layoff decision comes after Hasbro's consumer products revenue decreased 4% year over year to $398 million in the first quarter. The segment's adjusted operating loss totaled $31 million during the quarter. Among the bright spots helping Hasbro navigate the challenges are Magic: The Gathering, which saw sales soar 45% year over year in the quarter, and digital games. Most of Hasbro's Wizards products are produced in North Carolina and Texas, with the remainder from Kyoto, Japan. Monopoly Go! strength helped its Digital Gaming segment grow 56% in Q1. Net revenue in the first quarter was $887 million, up 17% from the prior year, while adjusted earnings per diluted share rose 70% to $ American toy company sends harsh message to workers first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 18, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 18, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington waits on Trump's decision in Middle East conflict
Washington waited on edge Tuesday as President Donald Trump flew back to the White House and met with national security advisers to discuss the developing situation between Iran and Israel. Trump departed the G7 conference in Canada a day early as the conflict to rid Iran of its nuclear program intensified. Trump administration officials have insisted the U.S. is merely helping from a defensive standpoint at this time — even as evidence of a larger regional war, or potential U.S. involvement, continue. The president met with several top security officials in the Situation Room on Tuesday afternoon even as he continued to comment online about the conflict. His comments seemed to be making the case for more direct American involvement. On Monday evening, he criticized Iran for not signing a nuclear power deal, saying it was a shame and a 'waste of human life.' He declared Tehran should be evacuated 'immediately,' sparking panic in the Iranian city as millions tried to leave overnight. As of early Tuesday, he said he hasn't reached out to Iran to broker any 'Peace Talks,' and said that if Iran wanted to talk to him, they know how to reach him. The president later said that 'we' have 'complete and total control' of the skies over Iran. He said the country had good sky trackers and defense equipment, but it doesn't compare to American 'stuff.' He then said he knows where Iran's 'so-called 'Supreme Leader'' is hiding, calling him an 'easy target,' but said he won't be killed yet. 'Our patience is wearing thin,' Trump said with a warning about Iran targeting American soldiers. He later called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' The series of posts come as questions grow over the U.S. getting involved in the conflict, with support for the move coming from some quarters and opposition from others. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he ordered the deployment of additional defensive capabilities to the region, but didn't provide specifics. The military also moved a large number of refueling aircraft to Europe and the United States' Nimitz aircraft carrier, which can hold 5,000 people and more than 60 aircraft, Reuters reported. Vice President JD Vance backed Trump in a lengthy post of his own online. He said the president has been consistent in his view that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and made it clear to the country that it could happen one of two ways: 'the easy way or the 'other' way.' He praised Trump for showing 'remarkable restraint' in keeping the military's focus on protecting U.S. troops and citizens. While Vance didn't explicitly say Trump would be taking the U.S. in a certain direction, his message signaled that he believes the president should be trusted. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy,' Vance wrote. 'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish American people's goals.' 'Whatever he does, that is his focus.' Congress is divided over the possibility of the United States helping to target Iran's nuclear facilities, which Israel says can only be accessed using U.S. military equipment. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., filed a War Powers Resolution on Monday that would restrict President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally authorize military assistance to the area without the consent of lawmakers. The resolution was filed as a privileged measure, meaning it must wait at least 10 calendar days before it can be brought to the floor. Kaine said on Tuesday morning he has not yet announced any co-sponsors for the resolution but 'I definitely have interest.' That action has been matched by the House after Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif, filed a bipartisan resolution to block U.S. involvement unless explicitly approved by Congress. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Meanwhile, the issue has divided Congress on whether the U.S. should get involved, with some lawmakers expressing support for Israel and for dismantling Iran's nuclear program while others are cautioning against any participation from the U.S. military. While many Democrats in the House — at least 14 have signed on to Massie and Khanna's resolution — support restricting Trump's war power, a handful are not so sure. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., for example, who has positioned himself as a staunch ally of Israel, said the U.S. should engage in the conflict. 'Taking out Iran at this point, that's necessary if you ever have a chance to have any real peace in the Middle East,' he told Fox News on Tuesday. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., meanwhile, has maintained Israel's right to defend itself against attacks while arguing Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. On Tuesday, Schumer told reporters that Senate Democrats 'will not hesitate to exercise our authority' when it comes to approving military action if necessary. That sentiment is shared among several Republicans, especially among those who have praised Trump's leadership on the issue. Some lawmakers such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have rejected arguments that the president needs congressional approval to authorize U.S. military involvement. But some aren't supportive, no matter what Trump and Vance have said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., normally a staunch ally of Trump's, appeared to break with some of her Republican colleagues over the issue. 'War has bad consequences. We voted for America First,' she wrote.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The battle over Utah's collective bargaining ban: How Utahns say they would vote
Over the last few months there's been a lot of discussion and controversy over Utah's law banning public sector collective bargaining and the referendum to repeal it. But how do Utahns actually feel about the law? The Deseret News recently ran a poll with HarrisX asking over 800 Utahns what they think of the labor unions referendum movement happening in Utah, here's a look at what the response was. The law, HB267, was passed through the Utah Legislature this year and shortly after a group of public unions filed for a referendum against it. Respondents to the poll were asked: 'The referendum to repeal the law that bans public employee unions in Utah from collective bargaining recently qualified for the 2026 ballot. If the election were held today, would you vote in favor or against the referendum?' Out of 805 registered voters, 36% said they would vote in favor of the referendum, 32% said they'd vote against and 31% said they don't know. 'This shows that while the referendum supporters gathered historic numbers of signatures, that's not necessarily translating directly to support for the referendum overall,' wrote Kevin Greene, the state director of Americans for Prosperity Utah, who is in favor of HB267. When it comes to party affiliation, Republicans were split almost perfectly into thirds, with 33% saying they'd vote in favor, 33% against and 34% saying they don't know. 'The recent poll confirms what we already know: Utahns stand with public workers, no matter their political affiliation. Support for the referendum is strong and we see a significant opportunity to grow that support further,' according to a statement from the Protect Utah Workers coalition. Democrats had a stronger lean toward the referendum, with 50% saying they'd vote in favor, 27% saying they'd vote against and 23% saying they don't know. 'I think these results show that there's a lot of room to educate the public on what HB267 actually did and why it's good policy for Utah,' Greene said. 'We're already doing that through conversations at the grassroots level, and we're seeing support grow in favor of this new law when people get fully connected to it.' This survey was conducted online from May 16-21 among 805 registered voters in Utah by HarrisX. Respondents are recruited through opt-in, web-panel recruitment sampling. Recruitment occurs through a broad variety of professional, validated respondent panels to expand the sampling frame as wide as possible and minimize the impact of any given panel on recruiting methods. The results reflect a representative sample of registered voters in the state. Results for voters were weighted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, political party, education, and congressional district. The margin of error for the sample is +/- 3.5 percentage points. 'It appears that every side, regardless of your position, has a lot of ground to cover, for, for or against,' said Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah. 'I expect, given these numbers, all, whatever side people are on, there will be a renewed effort to reframe the arguments for and against.' David Osborne, the senior director of Labor Policy with the Commonwealth Foundation, shared what the different provisions of the bill are. The first thing it does is prohibits collective bargaining for public labor union, which is what has drawn the most controversy. Collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees. It also has a provision called paycheck protection 'in Utah, that means that there's only so much union dues that can be collected via payroll deduction,' Osborne said. There is also a ban on government support for union activities, which includes 'giving union employees paid leave to participate in union activities,' as well as allowing unions to use certain spaces for free. The law also puts an end to involving public sector unions in the state retirement system. It also would provide liability insurance for teachers, which was previously only available through the unions. 'So that would take away the impulse for someone who doesn't want to be part of the union to join anyway,' Osborne said. There is also a transparency aspect to HB267, which would require unions to report to the labor commission their membership numbers and where they're spending their money. This law only deals with public sector labor unions and has nothing to do with the private sector. Under HB267 unions would still have the right to exist and operate, they just would no longer be able to participate in collective bargaining. While the law would impact all public sector unions in the state, teachers have been the focus of a lot of the arguments over HB267. There have been multiple organizations that openly support HB267, one of these is Utah Parents United, which supports the law because they want schools to focus more on students and parents. 'It will take the focus off the politics in school, right, and then start putting the focus back on student success and our kids. And that's what education should be about. It should really be about our kids the end of the day and and that's why we love this bill,' said Corinne Johnson, the founder and president of Utah Parents United. Osborne said that part of HB267 is protecting public employees who don't want to be a part of the union. 'Usually in America, we think individualistically about individual rights, civil rights, one of which would be to choose who represents you and who doesn't speak for you, but exclusive representation and unionism is a collective enterprise. It's sort of the opposite of what we might think of as a individual liberties in another context.' But with the paycheck protection and retirement system provisions, its more than just about employees. 'This is a lot more than just protecting an individual public employee, this seems to also be about the taxpayer,' he added. One argument in favor of the law is that it will decrease the political power of the unions. Osborne shared that in Chicago the teacher's union got one of their union officials elected as mayor. 'They get him in place, and then come negotiation time, they're like, 'Alright, let's do a deal.' He has basically drawn up plans to bankrupt the city for the benefit of the teachers unions,' he said. He also added that the law will help governments 'actually run things,' instead of focusing on negotiating with the unions. 'This law, again, takes away our voice. It takes away the autonomy of our employers to recognize a bargaining agent,' said Renee Pinkney, the president of the Utah Education Association. The Protect Utah Workers Coalition has been leading the charge in the fight against HB267. The coalition is made up of 19 different unions in the state including the UEA, Teamsters Local 222, American Federation of Government Employees and Professional Firefighters of Utah. 'It's about our voice. It's about our ability to make positive improvements in our schools, and it's about democracy, because we believe the people should be able to weigh in on this particular decision,' Pinkney said. Pinkney said that the ability to collective bargain doesn't just help when it comes to compensation packages, but also with working conditions, safety and their students' learning conditions. But she added that being able to collective bargain for compensation allows districts to stay competitive. Harrison Long, a firefighter who is a part of the Salt Lake City Local 81 union, helped with the signature gathering effort and shared why he is against HB267. He agreed that collective bargaining helps firefighters not just with wages but with safety. One thing firefighters in Salt Lake City have been able to negotiate for is four-handed staffing, which makes it so each fire engine has to have four firefighters, making it easier for them to do their job and safer for the public. 'We believe that firefighters should have a voice in firefighting,' Long said. 'It is important for public workers, for educators, to be able to collaborate with our districts to improve working conditions, to make sure that we have healthy and safe schools for our students, for our educators, that we are working to help our students and educators thrive,' Pinkney added. One other point Pinkney made is that some districts and organizations use collective bargaining and others don't, based on their needs and situation. 'One size doesn't fit all,' she said. HB267, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R- South Jordan, was one of the most controversial bills of this year's legislative session and after it was passed by lawmakers, it was signed by Gov. Spencer Cox. As soon as the session ended, the public unions against the law came together to form the protect Utah workers coalition and filed an application for a referendum against the law. The next few weeks were engulfed by a signature gathering campaign by the coalition, which included volunteers and paid signature gatherers. After the coalition turned in over 300,000 signatures, signature verification was completed on May 8. At the end of the verification process conducted by county clerks offices around the state, 251,590 signatures had been verified and 73,136 signatures had been rejected. In Utah a referendum requires 140,748 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The law was originally supposed to go into effect on July 1 but on May 6, Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson issued a temporary stay of HB267, meaning it will not go into effect when originally planned. Under the temporary stay, the ban on public sector collective bargaining will stay paused until the lieutenant governor declares the referendum petition insufficient or the governor issues a proclamation putting the law into effect. Even though the signature verification process has been finished, signatures can still be removed, Pinkney said she believes the deadline for signature removal is June 23. The amount of signatures gathered qualifies the referendum for the ballot and it is assumed that the referendum will be on the ballot during the November 2026 general election in Utah, but nothing is confirmed. There are a few other options as to what could happen, for example a special election could be called by the governor. As soon as it is confirmed that the referendum will be on the ballot and when that will be, it is expected that both sides will be launching campaigns to encourage Utahns on how to vote. 'We're confident that when voters have the final say, they will reject HB267 and stand with the people who serve our communities every day. Public workers are united, momentum is on our side, and we will win,' according to a statement from the Protected Utah Workers Coalition. Pinkney said that the campaign for the referendum would look similar to the UEA's campaign against Constitutional Amendment A. 'We'll keep doing what we've been doing — talking to the public about why the law is great policy for Utah. It protects taxpayers and ensures accountability. We're ready to continue our push to rally support for the law if it ends up on the ballot,' Greene wrote.
