GAO Makes Official What's Been Obvious: Trump Admin Is Breaking Impoundment Control Act
As part of its 39 different investigations into various actions the Trump administration has taken in the last four months that could qualify as Impoundment Control Act violations, the Government Accountability Office determined this afternoon that the Trump administration has, in fact, done just that.
The congressional watchdog found that the Department of Transportation illegally withheld funds when it paused a Biden-era initiative to expand charging stations for electric vehicles across the nation in February. The $5 billion initiative was originally put in motion by the Transportation Department as part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, an element of the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by Congress under President Biden.
Trump's Transportation Department, however, froze the $5 billion in funding to the project as part of DOGE's rampage through the executive branch. The DOT has claimed that it placed a pause on the funds while it writes new rules for how to disperse the grant money.
The Office of Government Accountability was not persuaded by the Trump administration's argument and said that if the new administration wants to make funding changes to the EV charging station program, it needs to — you guessed it — send Congress a rescission package. Or suggest new legislation for Congress to consider. Here's the exact language from the GAO ruling:
DOT is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program. While DOT cannot withhold these funds under the ICA, DOT could propose funds for rescission or otherwise propose legislation to make changes to the NEVI Formula Program for consideration by Congress.
You can read a more detailed breakdown of the findings here.
Big picture, the non-partisan congressional watchdog is expected to issue more rulings in coming months as it works its way through nearly 40 other similar investigations into whether the Trump administration has violated the 51-year-old law in other ways. The Trump White House has already called the GAO finding 'wrong' and GAO opinions are, in general, considered nonbinding recommendations to Congress. Such a finding might matter more in an era where congressional Republicans were not already so willing to choke down all of Trump's DOGE cuts.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) put out a compelling statement in response to the ruling saying it 'affirms what we've long known: the President is breaking the law to block funding Congress passed on a bipartisan basis and that is owed to the American people — simply because he disagrees with it.'
By now, you've seen the news: the Trump administration is attempting to end Harvard's ability to enroll international students, which make up almost a third of the student population at the university that has thus far not given into Trump's attempts to bend it to his will. The school gave the Times the following statement:
'We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard's ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the university — and this nation — immeasurably,' said Jason Newton, the university's director of media relations. 'We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission.'
President Donald Trump is urging the Senate to act on the House-passed reconciliation package 'as soon as possible.' House Republicans narrowly passed their bill — that includes massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP — early this morning after weeks of intraparty fighting that culminated in a Trump intervention this week.
But the 'big, beautiful bill' is expected to face major challenges in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is reportedly privately meeting with senators who are against the package's sweeping cuts to Medicaid. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has been very vocal about his opposition to cuts to the social safety net program for weeks. And the Hill is reporting that a group of five to seven Republican senators are concerned about the Medicaid reforms included in the House's reconciliation package.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already said he is a 'no' on the bill in its current form, as it does not do enough to address the deficit. Senate Republican leadership is considering taking the House's package and chopping it up into pieces to make it easier to pass.
One thing is certain: the problems that plagued the bill's passage in the House aren't going anywhere. And there will be changes to the bill's text once the upper chamber gets its hands on it.
— Emine Yücel
New from Kate Riga: Supreme Court Kills The Independent Agency. Trump Is King
And a scoop from Josh Kovensky: An Outspoken Christian Nationalist Pastor Expands His Sway In Trump's DC
House Passes Trump's Reconciliation Bill After Shoving In Larger Medicaid Cuts At Last Minute
Federal Judge Calls Out Trump DOJ's Targeting Of Political Rivals In Real Time
Welcome To The White Christian Nationalist Presidency
Judge Finds DHS Violated Court Order In Sudden South Sudan Removal Scheme
Democratic Hill staffer is a contestant on next season of 'Survivor'
The Republican Party's Populist Betrayal
The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ukraine tries to understand why Trump suddenly abandoned idea of cease-fire
Trump called on social media for a direct peace agreement without securing a cease-fire first, claiming that Zelenskyy and European leaders had agreed on the point. His statement was a stark shift from the 'principles' agreed upon earlier in the week by Trump, Zelenskyy and his European allies, which called for refusing to discuss peace terms until a cease-fire was in place. Advertisement Russia has long pushed for a direct peace deal that would address a broad range of issues and impose onerous demands on Ukraine, including territorial concessions. Avoiding a cease-fire would allow Russia to continue pressing its advantage on the battlefield in the meantime. Advertisement An official briefed on the call between Trump and Zelenskyy said the Ukrainian leader's trip to Washington would aim to seek clarity from Trump. Kyiv does not understand why the American president suddenly dropped the demand that a cease-fire precede negotiations. In a statement, Zelenskyy seemed to tread carefully, trying not to openly contradict Trump. 'We need to achieve a real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,' Zelenskyy said. But he added that 'the killings must stop as soon as possible, and the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the air, as well as against our port infrastructure,' suggesting that he was still prioritizing a cease-fire. In statements of their own, European leaders made no mention of having agreed to abandon their demand for a cease-fire. At the same time, the fact that the statements did not include a demand for a cease-fire, as in previous remarks, suggests at the very least an attempt not to antagonize Trump. Trump's move to aim for a direct peace deal could bring to failure a week of frantic diplomacy in which Kyiv, with European support, had lobbied the U.S. administration to insist that a cease-fire should come first and that Ukraine should not be undercut in the negotiations. Trump's social media post caused a feeling of whiplash among some Ukrainians, who quickly reversed their early assessments of the Alaska summit. Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian parliament, had initially expressed some relief, saying that 'the situation could have been worse' if Trump and Putin had struck a deal behind Ukraine's back. Advertisement He said that a scenario in which 'Trump and Putin started together to pressure Ukraine into surrender' could not have been ruled out given Trump's history of deference to Putin. But after Trump's post on Truth Social, Merezhko changed his view. 'In fact, Putin and Trump are starting to force us into surrender,' he said. Trump also proposed security guarantees for Ukraine inspired by the collective defense agreement between NATO member countries, which states that any attack on a member is an attack against all, according to Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister. Under such guarantees, Ukraine's NATO allies would be 'ready to take action' if Russia attacked again. But Merezhko and other Ukrainian allies said such a formulation was too vague. 'Which countries will agree to consider an attack against Ukraine as an attack against themselves?' Merezhko asked. 'I'd like to believe that we will find such countries, but I'm not sure.' Trump, in an interview with Fox News after the meeting with Putin, also addressed the idea of territorial swaps, saying they were among the points 'that we largely have agreed on.' Trump had said several times over the past week that territorial concessions would be part of a peace agreement, drawing pushback from Zelenskyy. Zelensky, however, has not entirely ruled out possible land swaps, telling reporters this past week that this is 'a very complex issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine.' Merezhko, who like many Ukrainian officials was left on tenterhooks by the Alaska meeting, watched the post-meeting news conference live from Kyiv at around 2 a.m. local time. As both Trump and Putin offered only vague statements, Merezhko said it had become clear that no concrete deal had been reached. Advertisement He noted that Putin had again said that any end to the fighting must address the 'root causes' of the war, which is Kremlin parlance for a range of issues that include the existence of Ukraine as a fully independent and sovereign nation aligned with the West. 'I think it's a failure because Putin was again talking about security concerns and used his usual rhetoric,' Merezhko said as the press conference came to an end. 'I don't see any changes.' In Kyiv, some emerged Saturday morning from a sleepless night following the news with the sense that the war was likely to continue unabated. After the Alaska summit wrapped up, the Ukrainian air force said Russia had continued its assault on Ukraine, launching 85 drones and one ballistic missile overnight. These figures could not be independently verified. Tetiana Chamlai, a 66-year-old retiree in Kyiv, said the situation with the war would change only if Ukraine was given more military support, to push Russian forces back enough to force Moscow to the negotiating table. 'That's the only way everything will stop,' she said. 'I personally do not see any other way out.' But Vice President JD Vance made clear this past week that the United States was 'done' funding Ukraine's defense against the Russian invasion. The Trump administration, however, is fine with Ukraine buying American weapons from U.S. companies, and Zelenskyy announced this past week that Kyiv had secured $1.5 billion in European funding to purchase U.S. arms. This article originally appeared in
