AmeriCorps cuts leave people who serve and community organizations scrambling for alternatives
WEST COLUMBIA, Texas (AP) — Years had passed since Hurricane Harvey's howling winds and heavy rains tore apart Dan Lee's century-old roof in West Columbia, south of Houston. Then came the knock on his door.
It was Mosaic in Action, a nonprofit that has helped more than 450 homeowners and relies on an AmeriCorps community service program that sends young adults to work on projects across the U.S. The organization repaired Lee's roof and got rid of the mold left behind in Harvey's wake.
'Before they came, man, I had holes in the ceiling where it got wet and the sheetrock had failed,' Lee said at his home. 'I was ashamed of it. They've just been a blessing.'
Last month, President Donald Trump 's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, gutted AmeriCorps, a 30-year-old federal agency that dispatches 200,000 volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars. For Mosaic in Action, that meant a 10-person team it was counting on would not arrive a few days later as planned, entailing a loss of nearly 2,000 hours of service that had been committed to help 11 homeowners.
'You can imagine what it's like to be in your home, never knowing how much rain's gonna come in that day,' said Debbie Allensworth, executive director and co-founder of Mosaic in Action. 'Without those valuable workers, we just can't do the work.'
The far-reaching government cuts have left communities across the country — small and large, urban and rural, in red and blue states alike — scrambling for alternatives amid the uncertainty, trying to sustain a slew of initiatives, from after-school programs to veterans' services to natural disaster response.
Long a target of critics
AmeriCorps employs more than 500 full-time federal workers, most of whom are now on administrative leave, and has an operating budget of roughly $1 billion. Despite bipartisan support, it has long been a target of critics who decry bloat, inefficiencies and misuse of funds.
'President Trump has the legal right to restore accountability to the entire Executive Branch,' Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, said this week via email after Democratic officials in about two dozen states filed a federal lawsuit.
In the weeks since corps members were let go and grants were abruptly canceled, organizations and volunteers have been searching for alternative solutions.
In West Virginia, High Rocks Education Corporation was told last week to immediately halt its programming funded by the AmeriCorps State and National grant program, including growing food, teaching digital literacy and mentoring kids in afterschool programs.
High Rocks executive director Sarah Riley said the organization has been trying to find emergency money to support corps members who will no longer have a paycheck and the nearly two dozen partner organizations that relied on AmeriCorps.
'We're all desperately trying to figure that out,' Riley said. 'Organizations will 100% fold over this.'
Meanwhile there is a broader ripple effect that leaves holes in communities, Riley added.
'All of the kids that they mentor, that was a really important adult in their life who cared about them, who's now gone with no ability to say goodbye,' she said. 'I don't know how you measure that.'
Not ready for service to end
Anna Gibbons, a 23-year-old team leader with AmeriCorps' National Civilian Community Corps, started reaching out to sponsor organizations days after being discharged three months early. She and her peers also started an online fundraiser, which brought in over $11,000 in donations within a little over a week.
Now they are headed to work at an environmental and education center in rural Oregon — without the support of the federal agency.
'We weren't ready for our service to end,' Gibbons said. 'We had the manpower to do it, we just needed the funds.'
In central Wyoming, the Casper Housing Authority was counting on an AmeriCorps team to kick-start food production on an urban farm providing fresh, locally grown produce to residents.
Within 48 hours of learning that AmeriCorps was dismissing the 10 workers, the authority received a $20,000 donation from the Zimmerman Family Foundation allowing it to bring in the corps members and pay them minimum wage.
Such workarounds are bandages that will be difficult to maintain, said Judd Jeansonne, executive director of the Volunteer Louisiana service commission. Public funding through AmeriCorps has always been coupled with private dollars, he said, but it is a symbiotic relationship with one requiring the presence of the other to subsist.
'It's not sustainable in the long term,' Jeansonne said, 'because those investments historically have been part of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.'
And while AmeriCorps is a large national investment, Jeansonne said, it's unique in that most funding decisions are made locally by state service commissions like the one he runs in Louisiana.
'It's meeting critical community needs,' he said. 'These are people in Louisiana or Mississippi or Arkansas, or wherever they are, identifying the needs and making sure that the dollars go there.'
___
Fingerhut reported from Des Moines, Iowa.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Predator Drones Are Being Flown Over Protesters In Los Angeles
As part of the massive deployment of federal law enforcement and even active duty troops to Los Angeles, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine Operations (AMO) department has been flying MQ-9 Predator B drones over the city. CBP has been flying these unmanned aircraft since 2005 in service of their mission of detecting illegal border crossings. Now, they are being used to conduct aerial surveillance of the protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. LA is a fair distance from the border, and the protestors are not crossing it anyway, meaning the drones are getting used outside of their main mission. This isn't the first time they've been pulled into domestic surveillance duty. During the protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd in 2020, CBP flew them over Minneapolis to keep eye on the protestors there. This drew swift criticism at the time, including by Democratic members of Congress, and Predators do not appear to have been used for this purpose again until now. That said, aerial surveillance of protests, notably by helicopters, is a common practice. The question now is whether unmanned platforms will start being used more regularly, particularly under an aggressive Trump administration. Read more: The Best-Looking Pickup Trucks Ever Sold, According To Our Readers The Predator B drones (which are called "Reapers" in their military variation) used by CBP are strictly surveillance aircraft; they are not armed with any ordnance. While they do have radar systems, those are mostly useful for detecting vehicles; what's relevant here is their electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, basically cameras capable of seeing into both visible and infrared spectrums. Eyes in the sky, in other words. The Department of Homeland Security has released some footage captured by the Predators on X, cut with some intimidating music in a clear effort to push a specific narrative (the post's text, "California politicians must call off their rioting mob," is not exactly subtle or, for that matter, accurate). Low-rent movie trailer music aside, the footage does demonstrate the drone's ability to capture wide-angle shots of the situation. For what it's worth, CBP told The War Zone that the drones are specifically "providing officer safety surveillance" and are "not engaged in the surveillance of First Amendment activities." Given that clashes with protestors is what's at issue, though, that's functionally not much of a distinction. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Detained Columbia protester asks judge to order his release after government misses appeal deadline
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil on Friday asked a federal judge to order the release of the Columbia University protester from an immigration lockup, saying the Trump administration missed an appeal deadline. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey, the lawyers said Khalil has satisfied all the court's requirements, including posting a $1 bond, while the lawyers for the government missed a 9:30 a.m. deadline the judge set Wednesday . In response to the letter, the judge gave the government until 1:30 p.m. Friday to formally reply to the request to free Khalil. The lawyers also say the government has declined to provide information about plans for Khalil's release and hasn't shown any other grounds for his continued detainment other than the reasons Farbiarz has already dismissed. 'The deadline has come and gone and Mahmoud Khalil must be released immediately,' his lawyers said in a statement provided by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups representing him. 'Anything further is an attempt to prolong his unconstitutional, arbitrary, and cruel detention.' Lawyers and spokespeople for the Justice Department and Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment. The Trump administration vowed Wednesday to appeal Farbiarz's ruling, in which the judge determined that Khalil had shown his continued detention was causing irreparable harm to his career, his family and his free speech rights. He previously ruled that expelling Khalil from the U.S. on those grounds was likely unconstitutional. Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. His was the first arrest under President Donald Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against the war in Gaza . U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. Khalil's lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech. Khalil isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists. He wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
