Dem AGs sue White House to counter cuts to Head Start, Medicaid for immigrants
A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is suing the Trump administration over a new policy that blocks people living illegally in the United States from accessing Head Start and certain types of health care and housing assistance.
The Democratic AGs say the changes imperil healthcare and early childhood education for millions of children and their parents, many of whom are U.S. citizens. Head Start serves more than 700,000 children and pregnant woman annually with programs designed to help prepare kids from low-income families to learn when they enter public schools.
"For decades, states like New York have built health, education, and family support systems that serve anyone in need," New York Attorney General Letitia James, a longtime Trump critic, said in announcing the lawsuit. "These programs work because they are open, accessible, and grounded in compassion. Now, the federal government is pulling that foundation out from under us overnight, jeopardizing cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and so much more. This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand."
The AGs are asking a federal judge to block the rule change before anyone loses services. They argue that checking citizenship might be too onerous for some smaller service providers, prompting them to close rather than risk punishment for accidentally violating the new rules.
The Trump administration argues the law has always banned non-citizens from getting such services, and says the new interpretation will save taxpayers $40 billion. Many federal programs, including the one formerly known as food stamps, are already limited to citizens and legal residents only.
"For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement on July 10, the day the new approach was announced. "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."
Advocates say it remains unclear how many people would lose services under the new rules, which potentially halt services in households of mixed immigration status. Many of these programs do not currently ask for immigration status.
Head Start would see an estimated $374 million redirected nationally, which could be available to other Americans, according to the Health and Human Services department.
The moves are part of Trump's ongoing immigration crackdown, which has seen the borders tightened and more aggressive detention and deportation of people living in the United States without permission. Trump is also seeking to remove birthright citizenship from children born to many immigrant families who today qualify for programs like Head Start or community healthcare.
Joining New York in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Wrote the attorneys general: "For the first time, millions of people are facing a new demand before they can access the nation's most essential programs: 'Show me your papers.'"
Many of the same attorneys general have also sued the Trump administration over federal funding cuts, withheld research grants, student visa changes, and the president's plan to end birthright citizenship.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Attorney General Pam Bondi has medical issue amid Epstein files scrutiny
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing a medical issue, abruptly canceled her appearance at an anti-trafficking event amid public outcry over her handling of the Epstein files and renewed scrutiny over President Donald Trump's relationship with the disgraced financier. Bondi was expected to speak at CPAC's Summit Against Human Trafficking on Wednesday before acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti took to the stage to reveal she could no longer attend. 'I do have a note from the attorney general, from Attorney General Pam Bondi, that I wanted to share,' he told attendees before reading her statement. 'I'm sorry to miss all of my CPAC friends today,' Bondi's statement said. 'Unfortunately, I am recovering from a recently torn cornea, which is preventing me from being with you. I truly wish I was able to join you and support all of the work being done on this critical issue.' The announcement came some 90 minutes before The Wall Street Journal published a report, alleging Bondi informed Trump during a sit-down in back May that his name repeatedly appeared in the Epstein files. That means their meeting occurred just weeks before the Justice Department released a memo declaring that, after a lengthy review of all evidence available, there is 'no incriminating client list' or proof Epstein blackmailed prominent people as part of his alleged actions. It further noted that no more files related to the case — other than a video meant to prove that Epstein died by suicide — would be made public. The subsequent backlash was fierce, with critics calling for Bondi's head. Trump has, meanwhile, repeatedly come to his attorney general's defense while trying to quell his angry base. Many of them have pointed out the president's past vows to make public the Epstein files, and his recent hesitation to do so, has sparked questions about his involvement with the financier. Further fueling the fire, The Wall Street Journal also recently published a report on a collection of letters gifted to Epstein, one of them allegedly penned by Trump. The note, contained in a bound collection given to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, apparently included a drawing of a naked woman with his signature written across her pelvis in a way that appeared to mimic pubic hair. 'A pal is a wonderful thing,' Trump wrote to Epstein, per the WSJ. 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied writing the birthday note and has since sued the Journal over its report. White House communications director Steven Cheung on Wednesday also denied the Journal's latest bombshell in a statement to Newsweek. 'The fact is that the President kicked him out of his (Mar-a-Lago) club for being a creep,' Cheung said in the statement. 'This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.' _____
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it matters who owns a newspaper
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says he won't seek third term in battleground Wisconsin
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's Democratic governor, Tony Evers, announced Thursday that he will not seek a third term in 2026, creating the first open race for governor in the battleground state in 16 years. It will be Wisconsin's highest profile race next year, as Democrats also angle to take control of the Legislature thanks to redrawn election maps that are friendlier to the party. They are also targeting two congressional districts as Democrats nationwide try to retake the House. The Legislature has been under Republican control since 2011, and some Democrats had hoped that Evers, 73, would run for a third term to give him a chance to potentially work with a Democratic-controlled one. Evers often clashes with Republicans Evers has drawn the ire of President Donald Trump's administration, and his tenure has been marked by his often contentious relationship with the Legislature. Before Evers even took office, Republicans convened a lame-duck session to pass a package of laws to weaken his power. Evers angered Republicans during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when he ordered schools and nonessential businesses to close, issued a statewide mask mandate and tried, unsuccessfully, to delay the state's April presidential primary. Republicans broke with tradition to reject 21 Evers appointees. They also blocked many of his proposals, including expanding Medicare, legalizing marijuana and spending more on child care, K-12 schools and higher education. Evers used his broad veto powers to stop Republicans from enacting a wide range of conservative priorities, including making voting requirements more strict, expanding gun rights, growing the private school voucher program and making abortions more difficult to obtain. But Evers did work with Republicans to pass the most recent state budget, which included $1.5 billion in tax cuts prioritized by the GOP and more funding for both K-12 special education and the University of Wisconsin. Evers also worked with Republicans to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee and funnel more money to local governments. Evers pushed for the redrawing of Wisconsin's legislative boundary lines, which the state Supreme Court ordered after liberal justices gained a majority in 2023. The maps drawn by Republicans, which had been in place for more than a decade, were widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country. The new maps drawn by Evers are more favorable to Democrats and helped them pick up seats in last November's election. Democrats are optimistic that they can win control of at least one legislative chamber next year. Evers waited until after he signed the state budget before making his retirement announcement. Possible candidates The open race is sure to attract several Democratic and Republican candidates. Democrats mentioned as potential candidates include Attorney General Josh Kaul, Lt. Gov. Sarah Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and suburban Milwaukee businessman Bill Berrien are running as Republicans. Others, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and state Senate President Mary Felzkowski, are considering it. The last open race for governor was in 2010, when Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle, similar to Evers, opted not to seek a third term. Republican Scott Walker won that year and served two terms before Evers defeated him in 2018. The only Wisconsin governor to be elected to a third four-year term was Republican Tommy Thompson, who served from 1986 to 2001. He resigned midway through his fourth term. Evers won his first race by just over 1 percentage point in 2018. He won reelection by just over 3 points in 2022. Before being elected governor, Evers worked for 10 years as state superintendent of education after a career as a teacher and school administrator. The folksy governor Evers positioned himself as a folksy governor who would sprinkle the occasional mild swear word into his comments and other Midwestern colloquialisms such as 'holy mackerel' and 'folks.' His mild-mannered demeanor stood in stark contrast to Trump and other political firebrands. 'I think he is the most quintessential Wisconsin politician I've ever seen,' said Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who has been in elected office since 1991. After winning reelection in 2022, Evers noted that he is frequently described as boring, but said: 'As it turns out, boring wins.'
