Latest news with #Anti-DeficiencyAct
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Labor Department, Which ‘Ridiculed Supporting Worker Rights Abroad,' Responds to ILAB Lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Labor, helmed by Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has opposed a lawsuit by several labor-focused nonprofits to restore its axed international technical assistance programs, saying that the claims 'suffer from jurisdictional and substantive defects' and should therefore be dismissed. The Solidarity Center, Global March Against Child Labour and the American Institutes for Research, which filed their legal complaint in April, said in their motion for a preliminary injunction earlier this month that Congress had 'expressly instructed' the Labor Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs, or ILAB, to support projects that fought against child and other forms of exploitative labor in U.S. trading partner countries, appropriating the necessary funds to do so. They said that the Labor Department 'violated' those commands when it abruptly terminated $577 million in grants, including 15 of their own, in March. More from Sourcing Journal U.S. Court of International Trade Blocks Trump's 'Liberation' Tariffs Activists Know How to Stop Sexual Violence in the Garment Supply Chain. Will Brands Buy In? Brazilian Leather Comes With Human Rights Risks. Identifying Them is a Problem. 'The termination notices gave no project-specific reasons for termination, stating only that the programs were being cut 'for alignment with agency priorities and national interest,'' the motion said. 'Around that same time, on social media, defendants ridiculed the very concept of supporting workers' rights abroad, despite Congress's express endorsement of that support through its funding for ILAB. Defendants also ignored that, as DOL had long recognized, helping American workers was a key reason that Congress required ILAB to fund projects like these.' In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia late last week, however, the Labor Department argued that a district court lacked the jurisdiction to grant relief to a federal grantee seeking contractual remedy over a federal grant agreement. They pushed back on the plaintiff's claims that the move to cancel the programs was unlawful because it violated various appropriations statutes, the Impoundment Control Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition of 'arbitrary and capricious' agency action and the Constitution's separation of powers principle. 'These claims…reflect [the] plaintiffs' fundamental misunderstanding of appropriations law and fail on the merits,' the opposition said. '[The] plaintiffs identify no statutory entitlement to the specific funds they were awarded by cooperative grant agreement; the appropriations they identify were to ILAB's overall program, not any specific grant or grantee. The agency undoubtedly has explicit authority to terminate such agreements for any number of reasons under the agreements' terms. None of the statutes [the] plaintiffs invoke to make their claims is applicable to the question [the] plaintiffs' press: whether the terminations were valid.' The Department of Labor took aim at the plaintiffs' alleged harming, characterizing them as 'all economic' and thus 'quintessentially reparable.' The balance of the equities and public interest also disfavor injunctive relief, it added, because the agency has 'determined that these tax dollars should not be spent on foreign projects that are inconsistent with its priorities and the national interest.' It cited a presidential executive order that mandated federal agencies with responsibility for U.S. foreign development assistance programs review the programs for 'programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy. 'Plaintiffs also lack standing to challenge anything beyond the termination of their own 15 contracts, because their complaint and motion are devoid of allegations regarding injuries from the termination of non-parties' grant agreements,' it said. 'Additionally, an injunction ordering the agency to disburse funds would be improper because any such funds are unlikely to be recovered even if the agency ultimately prevails.' Critics of the Trump administration's decision to eviscerate foreign aid say that rather than putting 'America Last,' as Chavez-DeRemer previously put it, these grants helped place American workers on an even keel by uplifting labor rights everywhere else. The American Apparel & Footwear Association and the Fair Labor Association have sent letters urging ILAB's preservation. So have over 100 civil society groups. Last Thursday, more than 70 Democratic lawmakers joined their ranks when they wrote to Congressman Robert Aderholt, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Appropriation's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, its Democratic ranking member, to request that they support ILAB's funding. 'As you know, ILAB's mission is to promote a fair global playing field for workers in the United States and around the world by enforcing trade commitments, strengthening labor standards, and combating international child labor, forced labor and human trafficking,' they said. 'ILAB works to ensure that fully enforceable labor standards are at the core of our trade agreements and programs, and that trade partners' laws and practices align with those commitments. The need to continue increasing these capacities across international supply chains and in workplaces around the world remains evident.' Representatives Ilhan Omar, Linda T. Sánchez, Hillary Scholten, Steven Horsford and others also said they rejected attempts to cut ILAB's program funding because of the 'critical role' it plays in enforcing labor-related trade obligations in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the legislation of which included $180 million over four years for ILAB to undergird labor justice reform and worker-focused capacity building in Mexico, including through a Rapid Response Mechanism that allows workers or unions to report rights violations to the U.S. government, which must investigate the grievances in 30 days. 'Gutting ILAB does not put America first,' the letter said. 'It undermines American workers, distorts markets in favor of unscrupulous businesses and regimes, strips our trade and customs officials of critical enforcement tools, and accelerates a global race to the bottom on workers' rights. ILAB is one of the only U.S. government entities with the infrastructure, expertise and on-the-ground partnerships necessary to effectively counter forced labor.' The Solidarity Center, Global March Against Child Labour and the American Institutes for Research opposed the Department of Labor's opposition on Wednesday, saying that the district court does have jurisdiction and that they are entitled to either a summary judgment on the claims they made or a preliminary injunction. Anything short of injunctive relief, they said, would cause 'irreparable harm' to the organizations and the strides they have made in promoting respect for labor rights around the world and safeguarding American economic interests both domestically and abroad. ILAB funding accounted for 24 percent of the Solidarity Center's projected 2025 budget, 60 percent of Global March Against Child Labour's and was the only source of support for the American Institutes for Research's work with the Mexican government. The nonprofits said they've had to lay off employees; scupper partnerships with governments, unions, universities and community organizations; and 'entirely shut down' certain programs. Unless their funding is returned soon, they will be unable to rebuild these programs or maintain their work, 'given the difficulty rehiring staff with relevant expertise and connections and rebuilding relationships with partners they have had to abandon.' The Solidarity Center added that it will have to shutter projects in Mexico, Uzbekistan and the Republic of Georgia, imperiling its legal status and ability to operate in those countries. 'Abandoning their projects mid-stream will also hurt [the] plaintiffs' ability to carry out their work and fulfill their missions,' they wrote. 'Without restoration of ILAB funding, each plaintiff anticipates needing to make further cuts to their mission-critical work in the next weeks and months. Although, if funding is restored soon, [the] plaintiffs anticipate that they could rehire staff and rebuild their broken partnerships, doing so will become increasingly difficult as time passes.' They added that the Labor Department also hasn't addressed the fact that nixing all projects would render it 'impossible' for ILAB to fulfill its statutory obligation as set down by Congress, including by ignoring 'substantial evidence' showing whether each ILAB project lined up with the Trump administration's priorities. 'Had [the] defendants evaluated any of the evidence before them about the alignment of ILAB's cooperative agreements with agency priorities, they would have seen that much of this work is, in fact, consistent with their own stated desire to protect American workers,' the motion said. 'As Congress itself recognized by continually funding ILAB's technical assistance work, these projects make America stronger and more prosperous by, among other things, 'ensur[ing] workers and businesses in the United States are not put at a competitive disadvantage' when other countries ignore their labor commitments.'
The Hill
27-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Congressional Black Caucus calls on Lutnick to protect Minority Business Development Agency
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce demanding Secretary Howard Lutnick protect the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) from President Trump's latest executive order. 'For years, the MBDA has provided critical resources for Black-owned businesses across the nation,' the CBC's letter reads. 'As a result of recent actions taken by this administration, minority-owned businesses are set to face a number of hurdles imposed by President Trump that will further cripple our already buckling economy. It is imperative that we protect hard-working Americans by investing in opportunities that an agency like the MBDA provides.' The MBDA, created under former President Nixon's administration, aims 'to promote the growth and global competitiveness of Minority Business Enterprises in order to unlock the country's full economic potential.' In 2021, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it made the MBDA a permanent agency. Trump's March 17 executive order, Continuing the Reduction of The Federal Bureaucracy, seeks to dismantle the agency. Some conservatives have argued the agency is discriminatory toward white people. But the CBC emphasized that Black Americans own 3.5 million businesses and employ more than 1.2 million people. The caucus also highlighted that the MBDA plays a vital role in generating capital and jobs. In 2023, the agency facilitated $1.2 billion in capital, secured $1.6 billion in contracts, and generated or saved more than 14,000 jobs. 'This administration's efforts to take our country back in time and remove critical tools of economic success for minority populations will hinder the potential economic growth of every community in this nation,' the CBC wrote. 'We ask that you protect and promote this economic driver and ensure that this agency, which has significantly contributed to our nation's success, continues to thrive.' The CBC said dismantling the agency would not only undermine the economy, but is also unconstitutional. Halting services provided by the MBDA would also violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and appropriations laws, the caucus said. The CBC is calling for Lutnick to explain how the Department of Commerce plans to continue the operations of the MBDA to avoid violating the Anti-Deficiency Act, as well as to defend the proposed closure of the Agency under the executive order. The caucus is also seeking answers to whether the department will reinstate staff that have been placed on administrative leave. The CBC gave Lutnick until April 18 to respond to the letter. 'We urge you not to be complicit in this administration's complete disregard for the letter of the law,' the CBC wrote. 'Unlawfully dissolving federal agencies like MBDA by executive action is a threat to our democracy.'
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The US government could shut down: here's what you need to know
The US stands hours away from a partial government shutdown as Democrats decide whether to play ball with Republicans on the first major legislative hurdle in Trump's second administration. The House approved a stopgap funding measure called a continuing resolution last week, and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has urged Democrats in the Senate to pass the measure in the upper chamber. Lawmakers face a midnight Friday deadline, or the government will be partly shut down It is an event with the potential to inflict disruption to a range of public services, cause delays in salaries and wreak significant damage on the national economy if it becomes prolonged. Schumer faces intense backlash from House Democrats and others in his party, many of whom see any compliance with the Trump agenda as giving up the little leverage Democrats have. It's not immediately clear which government services would be affected in this shutdown, as the Trump administration hasn't warned the public about what could happen. But in past shutdowns, thousands of federal government employees were put on furlough, meaning that they were told not to report for work and go unpaid for the period of the shutdown, although their salaries were paid retroactively when it ended. Other government workers who perform what are judged essential services, such as air traffic controllers and law enforcement officials, continued to work but did not get paid until Congress acted to end the shutdown. Depending on how long it lasts, national parks could either shut entirely or open without certain vital services such as public toilets or attendants. Passport processing could halt, as could research at national health institutes. Simply put, the terms of a piece of legislation known as the Anti-Deficiency Act, first passed in 1884, prohibits federal agencies from spending or obligating funds without an act of appropriation – or some alternative form of approval – from Congress. If Congress fails to enact the 12 annual appropriations bills needed to fund the US government's activities and associated bureaucracy, all nonessential work must cease until it does. If Congress enacts some of the bills but not others, the agencies affected by the bills not enacted are forced to cease normal functioning; this is known as a partial government shutdown. For the first 200 years of the US's existence, they did not happen at all. In recent decades, they have become an increasingly regular part of the political landscape, as Washington politics has become more polarised and brinkmanship a commonplace political tool. There have been 20 federal funding gaps since 1976, when the US first shifted the start of its fiscal year to 1 October. Three shutdowns in particular have entered US political lore: A 21-day partial closure in 1995 over a dispute about spending cuts between President Bill Clinton and the Republican speaker, Newt Gingrich, that is widely seen as setting the tone for later partisan congressional struggles. In 2013, when the government was partially closed for 16 days after another Republican-led Congress tried to use budget negotiations to defund Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare. A 34-day shutdown, the longest on record, lasting from December 2018 until January 2019, when Trump refused to sign any appropriations bill that did not include $5.7bn in funding for a wall along the US border with Mexico. The closure damaged Trump's poll ratings. Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate but need 60 votes to get the bill ready for passage, meaning they need Democratic support. Democrats in the House near uniformly oppose the measure, with just one member defecting. These budget votes are one way Democrats can exert power with the runaway Trump administration, led by billionaire Elon Musk and his so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) slashing the federal workforce. Schumer plans to vote to move the measure forward, saying it's worse for Americans if he doesn't approve the 'deeply partisan' Republican stopgap legislation. 'If government were to shut down, Doge has a plan in place to exploit the crisis for maximum destruction. A shutdown will allow Doge to shift into overdrive. It would give Donald Trump and Doge the keys to the city, state and country. Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be free to destroy vital government services at a much faster rate than they can right now and over a much broader field of destruction that they would render.' Other Democrats strongly disagree. Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, said the bill would be a 'devastating assault on the wellbeing of working-class families'. Senators should follow their appropriations leaders, Rosa DeLauro and Patty Murray, who have proposed a four-week funding extension to keep the government operating while both parties work on a bipartisan agreement, she said. 'America has experienced a Trump shutdown before – but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse,' Pelosi said. The younger wing of the party is especially incensed by Schumer's defection. 'There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people,' Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said. 'Just to see Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think, is a huge slap in the face.' There is no current estimate of what the costs to the economy could be if the government shuts down this time. However, according to the congressional budget office, the 2018-19 shutdown imposed a short-term cost of $11bn on the US economy, an estimated $3bn of which was never recovered after the stoppage ended. Trump would probably face blowback if the government shuts down, just as he did during the 2018-19 shutdown. He has so far praised Schumer for 'doing the right thing'. 'Took 'guts' and courage!' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning!'
The Guardian
14-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The US government could shut down: here's what you need to know
The US stands hours away from a partial government shutdown as Democrats decide whether to play ball with Republicans on the first major legislative hurdle in Trump's second administration. The House approved a stopgap funding measure called a continuing resolution last week, and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has urged Democrats in the Senate to pass the measure in the upper chamber. Lawmakers face a midnight Friday deadline, or the government will be partly shut down It is an event with the potential to inflict disruption to a range of public services, cause delays in salaries and wreak significant damage on the national economy if it becomes prolonged. Schumer faces intense backlash from House Democrats and others in his party, many of whom see any compliance with the Trump agenda as giving up the little leverage Democrats have. It's not immediately clear which government services would be affected in this shutdown, as the Trump administration hasn't warned the public about what could happen. But in past shutdowns, thousands of federal government employees were put on furlough, meaning that they were told not to report for work and go unpaid for the period of the shutdown, although their salaries were paid retroactively when it ended. Other government workers who perform what are judged essential services, such as air traffic controllers and law enforcement officials, continued to work but did not get paid until Congress acted to end the shutdown. Depending on how long it lasts, national parks could either shut entirely or open without certain vital services such as public toilets or attendants. Passport processing could halt, as could research at national health institutes. Simply put, the terms of a piece of legislation known as the Anti-Deficiency Act, first passed in 1884, prohibits federal agencies from spending or obligating funds without an act of appropriation – or some alternative form of approval – from Congress. If Congress fails to enact the 12 annual appropriations bills needed to fund the US government's activities and associated bureaucracy, all nonessential work must cease until it does. If Congress enacts some of the bills but not others, the agencies affected by the bills not enacted are forced to cease normal functioning; this is known as a partial government shutdown. For the first 200 years of the US's existence, they did not happen at all. In recent decades, they have become an increasingly regular part of the political landscape, as Washington politics has become more polarised and brinkmanship a commonplace political tool. There have been 20 federal funding gaps since 1976, when the US first shifted the start of its fiscal year to 1 October. Three shutdowns in particular have entered US political lore: A 21-day partial closure in 1995 over a dispute about spending cuts between President Bill Clinton and the Republican speaker, Newt Gingrich, that is widely seen as setting the tone for later partisan congressional struggles. In 2013, when the government was partially closed for 16 days after another Republican-led Congress tried to use budget negotiations to defund Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare. A 34-day shutdown, the longest on record, lasting from December 2018 until January 2019, when Trump refused to sign any appropriations bill that did not include $5.7bn in funding for a wall along the US border with Mexico. The closure damaged Trump's poll ratings. Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate but need 60 votes to get the bill ready for passage, meaning they need Democratic support. Democrats in the House near uniformly oppose the measure, with just one member defecting. These budget votes are one way Democrats can exert power with the runaway Trump administration, led by billionaire Elon Musk and his so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) slashing the federal workforce. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Schumer plans to vote to move the measure forward, saying it's worse for Americans if he doesn't approve the 'deeply partisan' Republican stopgap legislation. 'If government were to shut down, Doge has a plan in place to exploit the crisis for maximum destruction. A shutdown will allow Doge to shift into overdrive. It would give Donald Trump and Doge the keys to the city, state and country. Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be free to destroy vital government services at a much faster rate than they can right now and over a much broader field of destruction that they would render.' Other Democrats strongly disagree. Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, said the bill would be a 'devastating assault on the wellbeing of working-class families'. Senators should follow their appropriations leaders, Rosa DeLauro and Patty Murray, who have proposed a four-week funding extension to keep the government operating while both parties work on a bipartisan agreement, she said. 'America has experienced a Trump shutdown before – but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse,' Pelosi said. The younger wing of the party is especially incensed by Schumer's defection. 'There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people,' Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said. 'Just to see Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think, is a huge slap in the face.' There is no current estimate of what the costs to the economy could be if the government shuts down this time. However, according to the congressional budget office, the 2018-19 shutdown imposed a short-term cost of $11bn on the US economy, an estimated $3bn of which was never recovered after the stoppage ended. Trump would probably face blowback if the government shuts down, just as he did during the 2018-19 shutdown. He has so far praised Schumer for 'doing the right thing'. 'Took 'guts' and courage!' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning!'
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Musk's buyout scheme for federal employees is an "illegal scam," Democrats charge
Congressional Democrats are sounding the alarm on the supposed 'buyout' offered to federal employees, calling out the offer as a "scam' aimed at undermining the civil service. On Jan. 28, federal employees received an email from the Office of Personnel Management under the subject line, 'Fork in the Road,' offering to pay them through Sept. 30 if they submit their resignation by Feb. 6. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, however, have flagged the offer as an 'illegal scam,' arguing that it's part of an effort that would "decimate our civil service and cause immeasurable harm to the American public.' 'We demand that you immediately rescind this offer,' Democrats wrote in a Feb. 3 letter to President Donald Trump. 'Federal employees are right to be skeptical of the resignation offer. The Administration does not appear to be acting pursuant to any buyout or severance authority outlined in Title V of U.S. Code. The offer provides no legally binding or formal guarantees, the guidance that it gives employees is likely illegal, and the entire offer could be found to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act.' Congressional Democrats on the Oversight Committee, where Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., serves as the ranking member, wrote that the offer 'would precipitate a mass exodus of the most experienced and capable federal employees, leaving our agencies severely understaffed and incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities.' They highlighted the Federal Aviation Administration's current under-staffing crisis as an example of a problem that would only get worse due to the offer, noting that it would precipitate a shedding of 'expertise and institutional knowledge' from government agencies. The letter goes on on to demand all related communications between the Office of Personnel Management, the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget, as well as myriad communications between 'non-governmental entities' and key players in Trump's war on the civil service, including Trump's pick for OMB director, Russ Vought, and billionaire Elon Musk.
