California sues Trump for blocking undocumented immigrants from ‘public benefit' programs
President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country.
One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided some 800,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance.
Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta's office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration's 'abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent' amounted to a 'cruel' and costly attack on some of the nation's most vulnerable residents.
'This latest salvo in the President's inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,' Bonta said. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.'
The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an 'arbitrary and capricious' manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Bonta's office said 'requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.'
It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be 'devastating — and immediate.'
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The states' claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services.
About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.'
The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.'
Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining 'the principles and limitations' of that law.
Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.
In response to Trump's order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding 'noncitizens' from more programs, including previously exempted ones.
'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.'
'Under President Trump's leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,' said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
'By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we're protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration's commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,' said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states' lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that 'many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,' which the department's notice said would continue to apply.
Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
6 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
24 minutes ago
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate approves more than $180 billion in 2026 funding before August recess
The Senate on Friday passed its first tranche of government funding bills for fiscal year 2026 ahead of its upcoming August recess, but Congress is bracing for a potentially messy fight to prevent a shutdown when they return in September. The chamber approved three bills that provide more than $180 billion in discretionary funding for the departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), military construction, legislative branch operations and rural development. The bills passed in two parts: on an 87-9 vote for military construction, VA, agriculture and FDA funding; and an 81-15 vote for legislative branch funding. The votes cap off days of uncertainty over whether the Senate would be joining the House on a monthlong recess with any of its 12 annual funding bills passed out of the chamber. Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who heads the subcommittee that crafted the full-year VA funding bill, said Friday that he sees the first batch of bills as more of a 'test run.' 'It's just been so long since we've done our appropriations bills. A lot of people just [forgot] the procedures,' he told The Hill, noting that in the previous congressional session senators 'really didn't do bills.' Appropriators say the vote marks the first time since 2018 that the Senate has passed funding legislation before the August recess. 'It's really a matter of just kind of legislating again, and the more we do it, the easier, the easier it'll be as we go back,' Boozman said. In the past week, senators had gone through several iterations of their first funding package of the year, as leaders on both sides worked through frustrations in their ranks over proposed spending levels and actions by the Trump administration that incensed Democrats. Well over half of the funding approved Friday is included in the annual VA and military construction bill, which calls for upwards of $153 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. That includes about $133 billion for the VA and roughly $20 billion for the Department of Defense military construction program. More than $113 billion in discretionary funding would go toward VA medical care. The annual agricultural funding plan calls for $27 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. It includes $8.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), about $7 billion in funding for the Food and Drug Administration, roughly $1.7 billion for rental assistance, and nearly $1.23 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Democrats have also highlighted $240 million in funding in the bill for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, which was targeted in President Trump's latest budget request. The annual legislative branch funding plan calls for about $7 billion for House and Senate operations, the U.S. Capitol Police and agencies like the Library of Congress (LOC), the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Architect of the Capitol. Capitol Police would see a boost under the plan, along with the CBO, while funding for the LOC, the CRS and the GAO would be kept at fiscal 2025 levels. Lawmakers also agreed to $44.5 million in emergency funds aimed at beefing up security and member protection, citing safety concerns following the shootings of Minnesota lawmakers earlier this year. Republicans had previously been uncertain about whether the third bill would be passed as part of the package this week until Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator, said a deal was worked out to allow him to vote on the measure separately from the other bills. Kennedy has criticized the legislative branch funding bill for its proposed spending levels. 'It just doesn't seem appropriate for us to be spending that much extra while everybody else has to take a cut,' he told reporters in late July. 'Now, some of my colleagues point out, yes, but the extra spending is for member security.' 'If you're going to spend extra money on member security, find a pay-for within the bill. I just think the optics are terrible and the policy is terrible,' he said. 'We ought to hold ourselves to the same standard we're holding everybody else, and that's why I'm going to vote no.' Republicans also blame Sen. Chris Van Hollen's (D-Md.) resistance to the Trump administration's relocation plans for the FBI's headquarters for weighing down efforts to pass the annual Justice Department funding bill. Senators had initially expected that bill, which also funds the Commerce Department and science-related agencies, to be part of the package until those plans fell apart earlier this week amid a clash over Trump administration plans to relocate the FBI headquarters. Speaking from the Senate floor on Thursday, Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafted the annual funding deal, said he had been pushing for an amendment aimed at ensuring the FBI would 'have a level 5 security headquarters.' He noted his previous attempt during committee consideration that temporarily led to the adoption of an amendment to the DOJ funding bill that sought to block President Trump's plans to keep the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, the change was later scrapped after staunch GOP opposition threatened to tank the bill. 'It didn't happen because members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats, didn't think that was the right thing to do – to preserve what we had set out before and make sure that the men and women [of the FBI] have a level 5 security headquarters,' he said. 'We did it because the President of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on.' Van Hollen said he hopes the bill will be able to 'get back on track' in September. However, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), chair of the subcommittee alongside Van Hollen, offered a rather gloomy outlook for the bill's next steps after recess. He argued much of the focus in September is likely to be on getting a deal on a funding stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), to keep the government funded beyond the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. 'When we get back from recess, we'll move to working on the CR to get us so I would guess if the CJS has a path, it's probably just the CR and will continue,' Moran said. 'All the work that we've done goes away, and we'll go back to CR and fund those agencies at the same level and same way that we did last year.' 'Every time we say we want to do appropriation bills, then there's someone who has a reason that, 'Not this time,' 'Not this one,' 'Not – because I didn't get what I want,'' he said. 'And this time we're arguing over an amendment that was allowed to the senator who's objecting, but he wanted a commitment that he get the outcome he wants.' 'And he didn't win in committee, and he wouldn't win on the Senate floor, but he can, I wouldn't think, but he can make his case. But he rejected that option,' he said.
