logo
Layoffs, closures and gaps in oversight expected after hundreds of DOJ grants are canceled

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 can provide 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, called 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 it to be 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It was unclear how much money it would take back since some of the rescinded grants were initially awarded as far back as 2021.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.
The cancellations included funding for 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 cut, 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 advisor 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.
During Elections
Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election.
'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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NATO must make ‘quantum leap' of 400% in air, missile defence: Rutte
NATO must make ‘quantum leap' of 400% in air, missile defence: Rutte

Global News

time2 hours ago

  • Global News

NATO must make ‘quantum leap' of 400% in air, missile defence: Rutte

NATO members need to increase their air and missile defences by 400 per cent to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance plans to say on Monday. Secretary-General Mark Rutte will say during a visit to London that NATO must take a 'quantum leap in our collective defence' to face growing instability and threats, according to extracts released by NATO before Rutte's speech. Rutte is due to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing St. ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands where the 32-nation alliance is likely to commit to a big hike in military spending. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defence spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Starmer has pledged to increase British defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2027 and to three per cent by 2034. Story continues below advertisement Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5 per cent of economic output on military spending and another 1.5 per cent on 'defence-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said last week he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. 2:03 U.S. pushes NATO for 5% defence spending while Canada fails to hit 2% target At the moment, 22 of the 32 member countries meet or exceed NATO's current two per cent target. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The new target would meet a demand by President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defence. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400 per cent increase in air and missile defence. Story continues below advertisement 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he plans to say. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defence posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defences since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago.

Start by Expanding Beyond Trade
Start by Expanding Beyond Trade

Japan Forward

time2 hours ago

  • Japan Forward

Start by Expanding Beyond Trade

Hudson Institute's Japan Chair challenges conventional international relations thinking by integrating a wide range of perspectives toward beyond-the-horizon policy issues. JAPAN Forward is pleased to amplify the voices of its fellows by sharing this report with our readers. Japan is facing a world suddenly beset by enormous uncertainties. Tokyo didn't ask for this moment, but it should take the embedded opportunity seriously. This is not a time to patiently wait for a return to the old normal. The ancien régime is gone. Instead, Tokyo should put forward ideas that transcend previous institutional arrangements. While the coming period will be challenging, Japan may never have a better opportunity to press for systemic change. By most accounts, the conversations between Japanese and American negotiators have been constructive. The US apparently wants to develop a framework agreement, undoubtedly encouraged by the one formulated very quickly with the UK. There is clearly no lack of goodwill between the two countries, and President Donald Trump's participation in the opening dialogue was more than just symbolic. He appreciates the extraordinary importance of the bilateral US-Japan relationship, and while the President takes issue with the merchandise trade imbalance, he and his team see value in creating win-win outcomes across a spectrum of subjects. Just as "war is too serious a matter to be left to the generals," financial, economic, and geostrategic relationships are too important to be left entirely in the hands of their respective specialists. The American administration isn't content with advancing an agenda within a narrow institutional framework (eg, trade). It is clear — if not clearly articulated — that the White House hopes to change the overarching framework itself. Trade, national defense, economic security, scientific cooperation, and cross-border investment flows are not just — in its view — stand-alone issues for discussion and negotiation, staffed by the elite inhabitants of exquisitely crafted separate castles, guarded by their own technocrats and autonomous rules. To the Trump administration, these issues are of common interest, require common popular support, derive from common fiscal support, and in some sense, are fungible in the hands of uncommon leadership. National leaders need to acknowledge that they own the totality of these processes and have to deliver a narrative to their home audience that makes sense of the bigger picture. This is a lot to ask. Nothing was easy before; now it gets harder. Even narrowly defined, bilateral trade negotiations are never straightforward dialogues that transparently improve all parties' welfare. Can leaders feasibly add national and economic security or other strategic issues to the negotiations? The downside risks are easy to envision. If negotiations drag on, the uncertainties and externalities can weigh heavily on growth. That's the most obvious risk, but there is substantial upside risk as well. The current system of multiple, narrow, expert-driven negotiations has drawbacks. The reemergence of global populist politics has been fueled by agitated groups of "losers" who have felt the weight of arrangements made without their input. Reframed properly, complex bilateral negotiations can take the air out of some of that populism. Both Japan and the US should come to the dialogue with a well mapped out and holistic picture of where they want to land. Further, both sides need to accept a form of negotiation that forgoes the rigid nothing-is-agreed-until-everything-is-agreed approach. Making provisional binding agreements on the path to the full package has to be ok. Because Japan and the US already have high trust and interconnectedness, this can work. The challenge is getting back to first principles: negotiators need to delineate the must-haves, the nice-to-haves, and the red-line boundaries of multiple policies irrespective of the structure of prior institutional arrangements. Minister of State for Economic Revitalization Ryosei Akazawa (right) and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shake hands before trade talks in Washington, DC. (Pool photo viaKyodo) Governments are accustomed to framing activities against visible institutional boundaries, typically framed by inherited norms. What this paper contemplates is a set of agreements and arrangements that allow for interplay between formerly walled-off subject areas. Economic security is potentially fungible with investment conditions. Trade is potentially fungible with minimum national security conditions. Intellectual property with direct national security relevance is fungible with employment and consular rules. When the legacy boundaries are in flux or removed, one can examine bilateral (and multilateral) agreements that would never fit within prior structures. Here are some specific suggestions for Japan as it formulates what might be called a fungible portfolio of "Japan First" policy proposals: Start by recognizing the obvious: the institutions of the legacy rules-based international order never rebalanced to reflect the realities of modern Asia, even as the populations, productivity, prosperity, and centrality of Asia to a highly interdependent world unfolded. This can be a moment for rebalancing, and Japan can both host and influence those institutions as they are — and should be — reshaped and refocused. Some of the specific areas where this approach can be operationalized are described below. The West is home to the largest multilateral financial institutions (eg, the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions, or IFIs), the United Nations and its component institutions, the central bank of central banks (the Bank for International Settlements), and the world's largest security and defense entity (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). It's time to encourage some of the IFIs to rebase themselves — specifically in Japan. If the US is ready to de-fund critically valuable parts of the UN institutional system, and if Europe's weak growth and financial outlook leave it unwilling or unable to support the pillars of international coordination and dialogue, then IFIs should move to a place where they would be valued and supported and where they can thrive. Digital tech, biomedical tech, and venture finance would benefit if they had a globally recognized hub in northeast Asia. These three fields are — unsurprisingly — mutually supportive. Institutional support for basic research at key universities and independent research institutes completes the picture. Japan already has success in all of these areas, but it lacks the scale to act as a gravitational force. As other countries back away from commitments in these areas — for different reasons — Japan can both fill a vacuum and create a global asset. The untapped human capital in East Asia would respond well to a viable opportunity in a nearby time zone. Becoming a global hub — whether for tech, finance, or any other area that thrives on continuous innovation — depends upon having enough people whose activities create a positive environment for doing more of the same work. These network effects in innovation are neither static nor mysterious. They require an environment that is conducive to the new, and that can act as a platform upon which innovators can grow and adapt. In other words, becoming a hub mostly requires ensuring that nothing obvious gets in the way. A ruthlessly honest assessment of domestic impediments could benefit both Japan and the US. Asia in general, and Japan in particular, can be a center for global thought leadership and a stage for communication and dialogue. The think tank ecosystem in Japan is strangely quiet and private. Corporate institutes abound, but in many ways they are sub-scale, narrowly focused, and punching below their weight. This doesn't reflect the quality of the human capital involved, so the issue is structural. More specifically, policy platforms and high-level regional security gatherings are relatively easy to sponsor, and Japan can afford to promote itself as a premier venue for security-focused institutional thinking. Washington, DC, hosts multiple public and private organizations that focus heavily on security, but these organizations aren't in DC strictly because the US is a dominant power. The causality goes both ways: the US has been dominant partially because of its convening power, and public dialogue that flows from thought leadership housed in think tanks such as Hudson Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and others. Tokyo can raise its profile in comparable ways. The government of Japan has long aspired to reinvigorate Tokyo as a global financial center. Many of us have written on this, been in discussions with government officials, and participated in public events aimed at shining a light on the virtues of bringing more financial headquarters to Tokyo. Working papers with specific proposals abound. Now is the time to make bold moves. Hong Kong is no longer the London of Asia, and Singapore is small and still a long way from the financial capitals of Japan, Korea, and China. If ever there was a good moment to announce policy measures that could entice more financial firms to bring their Asian HQs to Japan, that time is today. Japan occupies an indispensable place in the global supply chain for high-value-added goods, including products that are critical to the US defense supply chain. Tariffs and disruptions to global trading arrangements won't change this in the next few years, if ever. Japan can use this advantage as it thinks ahead to the give-and-take across other areas for negotiation. Factories, engineers, and expertise aren't readily mobile across national borders, and most importantly, human-centric intellectual property isn't either. Ask anyone involved in manufacturing high-value-added goods, and you will hear a story that belies political talk of significant tech-heavy reshoring. The reality is that it's a generational challenge. In the meantime, high-trust nations can co-develop pathways to a better balance across multiple fields. Japan can take the lead with the US and develop a framework in which both countries get more of what they want. Time is of the essence, and there's no reason for Japan to be unambitious. The pathway to a trade-plus deal will have ups and downs, crises and breakthroughs. It's unlikely to happen quickly, even if all parties aspire to a win-win outcome. The countries that bring a full and multidimensional agenda to the dialogue early will have a range of tools that may be valuable as the process unfolds. Japan brings more to the table than almost any other single country. None of this is going to be easy, but Japan is well-positioned to bring positive proposals to the negotiating table. The US administration knows what's at stake and should react well to proposals — including multidimensional ideas — that Japan and America can both describe as wins. A Good First Step: Analyzing the Trump-Ishiba Summit Author: Mark Siegel Mark Siegel is an adjunct fellow at Hudson Institute. He is also managing partner of Chancellors Point Partners LLC.

Anti-Trump group plans rally June 24 to celebrate Maine-Quebec Friendship Day
Anti-Trump group plans rally June 24 to celebrate Maine-Quebec Friendship Day

Montreal Gazette

time3 hours ago

  • Montreal Gazette

Anti-Trump group plans rally June 24 to celebrate Maine-Quebec Friendship Day

By Susan Schwartz A rally celebrating June 24 as Maine-Quebec Friendship Day is to take place at the state capitol, in Augusta, and its principal organizer wants Quebecers to know 'we in Maine value our relationship with the people of Quebec.' 'We believe it's very important that the people know how much we value and love them and love Quebec and Quebecers,' said Louis Sigel, who lives in Gardiner, just outside Augusta. The rally, to begin at noon and last about 90 minutes, is intended as an opportunity to celebrate the relationship of Maine residents with their Quebec neighbours, and also 'to protest against tariffs and the attitude of our federal government to cause friction with Canadians, who we care about a great deal,' Sigel said. 'We really want the people in Quebec to know that we don't like the government in Washington and what they are trying to do. We strongly believe in free trade. We think the agreement of free trade with Canada should be abided by and we especially have a strong feeling for Quebec. 'We want to emphasize that we are not like the people in Washington and certainly we are not like (United States President Donald) Trump. Tariffs are absolutely the worst possible economic policy for Maine,' Sigel said. 'We are protesting the attempts to destroy our democracy and establish a monarchy under Trump.' The rally is being organized by Indivisible, a progressive movement and organization formed in 2016 in response to Trump's election to a first term. Sigel, 81, is the lead organizer for Indivisible for Kennebec and Somerset counties. He said he has asked for a resolution from the legislature establishing June 24, Fête nationale, as Maine-Quebec Friendship Day and a proclamation from Maine Gov. Janet Mills. Indivisible held rallies in Augusta on International Women's Day and May Day. In addition to a permit for the rally on June 24, it has permits for rallies on July 14, Bastille Day, and on Aug. 18 celebrating the 105th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed women the right to vote. 'And we intend to have a rally almost every month to fight this government until we have Democratic control in Congress,' Sigel said. Maine's state legislature has a strong Franco-American caucus, he said. 'The largest ethnic minority in Maine is franco, especially in St. John Valley, along the border with New Brunswick, and there are families on both sides of the border who are related,' Sigel said. 'Every summer, there is a big Acadian festival in Madawaska, which is right on the border with New Brunswick ... Edmundston has a jazz festival and people go back and forth across the border.' There is a strong Franco-American presence in Maine, descended from the St. John River Valley Acadians, who settled in the north of the state after being expelled from the Maritimes by the British, and French-Canadians who came from Quebec in the 19th century seeking better employment opportunities, mainly in the mills, and stayed. Sigel, who majored in Chinese studies at Yale University and earned a PhD in history from Harvard University, spent much of his university teaching career in Australia. On returning to North America in the early 1980s, he taught in Missouri and Kentucky before being hired at Colby College in Maine to replace a professor on a sabbatical; he loved Maine and decided to stay. For more than a decade, he has owned a house on Île d'Orléans, an island in the St. Lawrence River near Quebec City and one of the first parts of the province to be colonized by the French. A large percentage of French-Canadians can trace their ancestry to the island's early residents. Sigel enjoys the winter carnival in Quebec City and the Festival d'été de Québec, and also appreciates the changing colours of leaves in autumn. He especially loves the food on Île d'Orléans. 'I think Quebec is the nicest place in North America,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store