Latest news with #ImpoundmentControlActof1974
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
GAO finds Trump's Head Start funding freeze illegal, citing harm to low-income families
FILE - Children play during aftercare for the Head Start program at Easterseals South Florida, Jan. 29, 2025, in Miami. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File) As President Donald Trump took the oath of office for a second term on January 20, 2025, a less visible but deeply consequential shift began to take place across the country. Funding for Head Start — the federal early education program that serves nearly 800,000 low-income children — was quietly delayed, triggering confusion, closures, and chaos. Now, the government's own watchdog says that delay was illegal. GAO: HHS violated federal law In a report released Wednesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law prohibits the executive branch from withholding congressionally approved funds without formal justification and notification to Congress. "We conclude that HHS violated the ICA," the GAO stated, citing the agency's failure to distribute Head Start funds from January 20 until April 25. Though payments eventually resumed, the disruption had already caused damage to families, educators, and the infrastructure of early childhood care. HHS pushes back Despite the GAO's determination, HHS strongly disputed the findings. "HHS did not impound Head Start funds and disputes the conclusion of the GAO report," said Andrew Nixon, HHS Director of Communications. He added, "GAO should anticipate a forthcoming response from HHS to incorporate into an updated report." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like China Power: Washington's loss, Beijing's gain as Chinese students shun the US for SE Asia? CNA Read More Undo GAO officials noted that HHS failed to provide information they requested regarding the delays, further undermining the department's defense. Families left stranded The consequences were immediate and widespread. Parents dependent on Head Start programs were suddenly forced to find emergency childcare, often at personal cost. Some centers suspended services or warned of impending closures, while staff members faced layoffs and funding uncertainty. In May, Reuters reported that delays in grant approvals had left many of the nation's Head Start centers in limbo. The closure of five HHS regional offices — located in Boston, Chicago, New York, Seattle, and San Francisco — only deepened the operational paralysis. A broader strategy to shrink government The Head Start funding freeze did not happen in isolation. It was part of a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to slash federal spending and reduce the size of government. At the helm of this initiative was Elon Musk, who was appointed to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. According to funding trackers maintained by congressional Democrats, nearly $943 million in Head Start funds were frozen at one point this year. Across all agencies, approximately $425 billion in federal funding was on hold as of June 3. Congressional outrage mounts Lawmakers reacted sharply to the GAO's findings. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, issued a blunt assessment. "It does not matter how long these funds were frozen. The chaos and uncertainty of illegally withholding these funds is costly and hurts the hundreds of thousands of families that depend on Head Start," she said. Legal and political fallout looms The GAO's ruling adds weight to a series of legal and political battles now forming over the administration's sweeping budget interventions. While HHS has pledged to respond, critics argue the damage has already been done. Beyond the legal infraction lies a deeper question about executive authority. Can a president override Congress on federal spending? And at what cost to the nation's most vulnerable? For the children whose preschool programs went dark and the parents forced into emergency care arrangements, those questions are not theoretical. They are daily realities shaped by decisions made in Washington — and now deemed illegal by the nation's top government watchdog. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Axios
17-07-2025
- Business
- Axios
Scoop: House Dems shrug off delay tactics to stall DOGE vote
House Democrats are largely shooing away the idea of trying to make Republicans miss their deadline to codify around $9 billion in DOGE cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, Axios has learned. Why it matters: While on paper it appears to be a rare opportunity to satisfy the demands of their base to use procedural tools to obstruct the GOP agenda, lawmakers and aides told Axios it's not that simple. House Republicans are scrambling to pass the rescissions bill, which would codify cuts to PBS, NPR and foreign aid, before a Friday deadline mandated by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. But there is a widespread belief among Democrats, including leadership, that the Trump administration would simply ignore or side-step that deadline as they have in other cases. Driving the news: At a press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) demurred when asked if he would pull a repeat of the record-breaking eight hour, 44 minute speech he gave to delay passage of the "big, beautiful bill." Jeffries, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) can all speak for unlimited time in what is known as a "magic minute" speech. "I do expect I will participate in the debate, and I expect I will speak longer than a minute," Jeffries told reporters. When pressed, he added, "I think Democrats are going to continue to fight hard and do everything we can to make sure that we are pushing back aggressively against this rescissions package." What we're hearing: Senior House Democrats and leadership aides told Axios that the prospect of a long speech appeared unlikely as of Thursday afternoon. One House Democrat told Axios they were told by leadership that Republicans "can play with the date, so [the deadline is] not hard and fast." A senior House Democrat told Axios on Thursday afternoon that leadership "doesn't think [the speech] will be long at this point." Zoom in: Instead of trying to hold up the bill, Democrats see the most productive strategy as continuing to force Republicans to block their efforts to bring up bills forcing the Justice Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. "Democrats have succeeded in tying the House GOP in knots over Epstein files amendments," a Democratic leadership aide told Axios. "It's lunacy to wring our hands over a statutory deadline that the administration will simply ignore when we've been able to send the Republicans into utter chaos," the aide said. Zoom out: Jeffries will have to contend with expectations from his grassroots base, which are sometimes untethered to the reality of congressional procedure. Some Democrats said those expectations alone may be reason enough for Jeffries to deliver a long speech. "I think it's smart, I think he should do it. People like it. People liked the last one," Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) told Axios. Yes, but: Members "would be really unhappy," if Jeffries gave a long speech "after what he did on July 4," a third House Democrat said on the condition of anonymity.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - End wasteful spending now, fix the budget next
With two minutes to midnight, the Senate is taking up President Trump's $9.4 billion rescission request to cancel unneeded appropriations this week. The House approved it on June 12. If the Senate amends the bill on the floor, the House will have to pass it again. Friday, July 18, is the deadline. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 sets the terms for a president to ask Congress to cancel appropriated spending. If Congress does not act within 45 days, the administration must spend the funds. After all, Congress exercises legislative powers, and the president must take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Congress should agree to cancel these funds. Incorporating the savings into the baseline would reduce spending by around $100 billion over the next decade. That's one-eightieth of the next decade's $8 trillion in new borrowing, but Congress has to start somewhere. Approving the request would open the door for the Office of Management and Budget to propose additional savings with far larger impacts. This isn't just about dollars, of course. Governments destroy value when the benefits of additional spending are less than the costs, including not only the deadweight losses from taxation or debt financing, but also other effects on private initiative, the capacity of other governments, and more. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has also suggested that Congress's refusal to eliminate waste would encourage the administration to use other tools. Those tools could ruffle feathers on Capitol Hill, but Congress's ability to vindicate its powers isn't as strong as it could be. Returning to the request before the Senate, it seeks savings in certain foreign affairs accounts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Vought testified about it before the Senate Appropriations Committee late last month. He was clear that the administration had more than satisfied responsible funding to fulfill the programs' purposes and simply could not find tolerable uses for the remnant. Senators were especially concerned about PEPFAR, the bilateral President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief established in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration. The program has done and continues to do much good in the world, and the vast majority of its funding would continue. Across PEPFAR and other foreign affairs activities, only the funds that could not be used reasonably well would be canceled. The request also proposes eliminating pre-funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in fiscal 2026 and 2027 without touching current funding. Setting aside whether the federal government should subsidize reporting (no), the Office of Management and Budget is committed to working with senators to preserve support for remote radio stations in upcoming appropriations. A possible funding gap at the end of the fiscal year is a related concern, but Congress could easily resolve it by enacting automatic continuing appropriations like in the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. After all, President Jimmy Carter's administration created government shutdowns, not Congress. And for those already unhappy with executive discretion on spending, just wait until a shutdown gives the administration total authority to decide which activities are 'essential' and 'non-essential.' Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have argued that presidential rescission requests are polarizing and make appropriations negotiations more difficult. True, it would be better for robust reprogramming and rescissions to be in each year's budget legislation. For that to work, however, Congress and the president must enact new appropriations well before the new fiscal year, probably not later than July. That can only happen if other committees and their members have bigger stakes each cycle by managing their portfolios in a comprehensive congressional budget that includes appropriations. Unfortunately, it's too late for Congress to fix its dysfunctional budget process for the fiscal year that's about to start. The immediate opportunity is for Congress to cancel wasteful spending that lacks a good use. Members of both parties should support the current rescissions request, consider further savings proposals in good faith, and then prioritize fixes for congressional budgeting. Kurt Couchman is senior fellow in fiscal policy at Americans for Prosperity. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
End wasteful spending now, fix the budget next
With two minutes to midnight, the Senate is taking up President Trump's $9.4 billion rescission request to cancel unneeded appropriations this week. The House approved it on June 12. If the Senate amends the bill on the floor, the House will have to pass it again. Friday, July 18, is the deadline. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 sets the terms for a president to ask Congress to cancel appropriated spending. If Congress does not act within 45 days, the administration must spend the funds. After all, Congress exercises legislative powers, and the president must take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Congress should agree to cancel these funds. Incorporating the savings into the baseline would reduce spending by around $100 billion over the next decade. That's one-eightieth of the next decade's $8 trillion in new borrowing, but Congress has to start somewhere. Approving the request would open the door for the Office of Management and Budget to propose additional savings with far larger impacts. This isn't just about dollars, of course. Governments destroy value when the benefits of additional spending are less than the costs, including not only the deadweight losses from taxation or debt financing, but also other effects on private initiative, the capacity of other governments, and more. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has also suggested that Congress's refusal to eliminate waste would encourage the administration to use other tools. Those tools could ruffle feathers on Capitol Hill, but Congress's ability to vindicate its powers isn't as strong as it could be. Returning to the request before the Senate, it seeks savings in certain foreign affairs accounts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Vought testified about it before the Senate Appropriations Committee late last month. He was clear that the administration had more than satisfied responsible funding to fulfill the programs' purposes and simply could not find tolerable uses for the remnant. Senators were especially concerned about PEPFAR, the bilateral President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief established in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration. The program has done and continues to do much good in the world, and the vast majority of its funding would continue. Across PEPFAR and other foreign affairs activities, only the funds that could not be used reasonably well would be canceled. The request also proposes eliminating pre-funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in fiscal 2026 and 2027 without touching current funding. Setting aside whether the federal government should subsidize reporting (no), the Office of Management and Budget is committed to working with senators to preserve support for remote radio stations in upcoming appropriations. A possible funding gap at the end of the fiscal year is a related concern, but Congress could easily resolve it by enacting automatic continuing appropriations like in the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. After all, President Jimmy Carter's administration created government shutdowns, not Congress. And for those already unhappy with executive discretion on spending, just wait until a shutdown gives the administration total authority to decide which activities are 'essential' and 'non-essential.' Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have argued that presidential rescission requests are polarizing and make appropriations negotiations more difficult. True, it would be better for robust reprogramming and rescissions to be in each year's budget legislation. For that to work, however, Congress and the president must enact new appropriations well before the new fiscal year, probably not later than July. That can only happen if other committees and their members have bigger stakes each cycle by managing their portfolios in a comprehensive congressional budget that includes appropriations. Unfortunately, it's too late for Congress to fix its dysfunctional budget process for the fiscal year that's about to start. The immediate opportunity is for Congress to cancel wasteful spending that lacks a good use. Members of both parties should support the current rescissions request, consider further savings proposals in good faith, and then prioritize fixes for congressional budgeting.
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
States sue over ‘plainly against the law' Trump $6B education funding pause
About two dozen state attorneys general and Democratic governors sued the Trump administration on Monday for withholding more than $6 billion in federal funds for several education programs nationwide. "This is plainly against the law," North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson told ABC News in an exclusive interview ahead of the lawsuit. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island. It includes the attorney general of the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. MORE: Trump administration pauses $6B in education programs ahead of school year "It's against the Constitution," Jackson explained, adding, "It's against the Impoundment Act. From a legal standpoint, this is not a hard case." The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 says Congress must consider and review executive branch withholdings of budget authority, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The law requires the president to report any withholdings promptly to Congress. Federal aid for schools is typically allocated each year on July 1, but aid was paused on June 30 in an ongoing programmatic review of education funding, according to a Department of Education memo sent to Congress obtained by ABC News. "If the courts don't act promptly, the consequences will be dire," Jackson warned, arguing that districts face immediate harm as the school year approaches. Jackson said the funding review also broke the constitutional separation of powers as the executive branch unilaterally halted congressionally authorized money for programs that serve millions of America's students. The Department of Education referred questions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which told ABC News many of the programs "grossly misused" government funds to promote a "radical leftwing agenda." The Impoundment Control Act specifically states OMB should specify the duration of proposed partial-year deferrals. However, in a statement to ABC News, an OMB spokesman said no decisions have yet been made. Even though no funding has been cut, Jackson condemned the administration, contending the effect of the pause is going to be massive and could result in North Carolina firing about 1,000 educators. He said workforce training, teacher preparation, suicide prevention and after-school programs could all be shuttered. MORE: Schools brace for wave of parents seeking opt-outs after Supreme Court ruling "Everybody knows when it comes to juvenile crime, you want a safe place for teenagers to be able to go, to be able to keep them out of trouble," Jackson told ABC News. "Nobody thinks that eliminating after-school programs across the entire country is a good idea." The pause has so far included Title II-A grants for effective educator instruction, Title IV-B grants for after-school programming, Title IV-A grants for student support, Title III-A funding for English Language Acquisition, Title I-C funding for Migrant Education and grants for adult education, according to the department's memo to Congress. Parents groups, nonprofits, and education advocates decrying the review are also expected to mount lawsuits against the administration, according to sources familiar. "This is one of those moments where something really big and potentially really damaging could be getting ready to occur," Jackson said. "I'm going to do everything that I can to stop it," he added. "It would be great if parents across the country lent their voices to this cause. I think everybody needs to hear from them." The funding pause comes as the administration has threatened to dismantle the Department of Education, reduced nearly half the agency's staff and made cuts to grants and programs that run afoul of its priorities. Jackson and state education leaders around the country believe vulnerable students will bear the brunt of any delayed funding. Alabama, California, and Washington state's education chiefs slammed the review, saying they haven't been given a timetable on when it might be completed. OMB has not said when it will make a decision. Alabama State Superintendent of Education Eric Mackey said this will affect students with the "greatest need" as the stalled funding meets his state's ongoing educator shortage. "The loss of funding for those rural, poor, high poverty school districts, is just going to be, you know, more fuel for the fire that makes it more difficult to educate children in those communities," Mackey told ABC News. The National Education Association, the country's largest labor union that represents teachers and other education professionals, estimates Alabama could lose about $100 million if the funds aren't reinstated, Washington would be out $150 million, and more than $900 million in funding remains halted in California by the administration. "It is a huge threat to our districts, many of whom don't have the reserves to cover the balance here," California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond told ABC News. "They built their budgets based on the expectation that federal funds would flow, as they have for many years, and so it creates threats for local districts that they may have to lay staff off. It raises threats for us as a state agency that provides technical assistance to many districts. You know, how will we continue to fund these positions?" he said. Both California and Washington state's attorneys general joined the lawsuit. The education programs likely can't withstand a review that stretches into the school year, state education leaders say. "If we don't have assurances that the money is going to be there [by September], school districts will have already started cutting programs," Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal told ABC News. "We will start our school year under the belief that we're going to go at least a year without these funds," he said. Meanwhile, as districts in Alabama return to school within three weeks, Mackey warned some programs may be eliminated for years to come. "Let's say we get eight, nine months down the road, and we're still in this pause situation and the funds haven't come. Then, I think as we begin to budget for the 2026-2027 school year then you're going to see a lot of programs cut," Mackey said. "People, as long as they can, will hold out. But if they see that this is kind of a permanent thing, that that funding is just not going to be consistent, then they are going to have to go with the more conservative approach," he added.
