Latest news with #LetitiaJames
The Hill
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
21 states sue over undocumented immigrants' access to health, safety net programs
A group of 21 attorneys general filed a Monday lawsuit against the Trump administration over a February executive order that ousts undocumented immigrants from social service programs. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor and Justice have reworked requirements to gain access to federal services effective July 10. Many programs, including Head Start, an early education opportunity for low-income parents, will ensure participants are subject to immigration verification. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is frontlining the effort to combat new policies alongside colleagues from Wisconsin, Maine, Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico, in addition to other states. 'These rules took effect immediately or with little notice, bypassing public input and ignoring real-world consequences. The policies apply not just to undocumented immigrants, but also to some people with legal status, including student visa holders, temporary workers, and exchange visitors,' James's office said in a Monday press release. 'In addition, the attorneys general warn that even U.S. citizens and lawful residents could be denied services, as many low-income individuals lack government-issued identification,' they added. The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. However, the February executive order entitled, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' said current social service operations undermine the principles and limitations outlined by Congress in the PRWORA law. Title IV of the PRWORA says it is policy that undocumented immigrants 'not depend on public resources to meet their needs,' and urges the government 'to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits,' as written in a White House release. 'My Administration will uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans,' President Trump wrote in the order. The Trump administration pledged to undertake the largest mass deportation effort in the country's history. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has acted on the initiative and increased raids in local hospitals, churches and places of employment. The president also signed the 'big, beautiful bill' into law on July 4, mandating a larger allotment for immigration enforcement efforts and cutting Medicaid funding for states that support undocumented immigrants.
CNN
5 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
CNN's Brianna Keilar presses Letitia James after a border patrol agent was shot by an undocumented immigrant in NYC
New York State Attorney General Letitia James tells CNN's Brianna Keilar the state's policy is to 'cooperate with ICE agents' looking for individuals with criminal convictions but asserts that the 'kidnapping of innocent individuals' by the government agents is also taking place. James' comments come after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's criticism that New York City's 'sanctuary city policies' were to blame for the shooting of an off-duty US Customs and Border Protection officer in an apparent robbery gone wrong.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
No papers, no preschool: 21 states sue Trump over immigrant service ban
A political firestorm has erupted as 21 Democratic attorneys general have taken the Trump administration to court over what they call a brutal assault on community safety nets. The lawsuit, filed Monday, targets new federal restrictions that deny access to key services—such as Head Start, public health clinics, and adult education—to immigrants without legal status. Spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the coalition argues the administration bypassed legal protocols and is imposing changes that will not only devastate immigrant families but jeopardize essential services for American citizens as well. 'These programs work because they are open, accessible, and grounded in compassion,' James said in a statement. 'This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand.' From care to compliance The rule changes, announced jointly by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Justice, represent a stark reversal of Clinton-era policies that allowed community-based programs to serve families regardless of immigration status. Now, providers receiving federal funds must check documentation before offering support. This shift places enormous burdens on local organizations, many of which run on razor-thin budgets. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo The lawsuit warns, 'It is likely that for some programs, the costs of compliance will be so high as to lead to the programs' closure.' Programs like Head Start, which provide preschool education, child care, and developmental services to homeless or impoverished families, have historically never required proof of immigration status. The new demand for verification, they argue, could unravel decades of progress in early childhood intervention. Collateral damage: American families The coalition's legal brief doesn't just highlight harm to undocumented individuals, it paints a broader picture of widespread fallout. Schools, mental health centers, addiction treatment clinics, and domestic violence hotlines, all partially federally funded, could see services disrupted or defunded due to their inability to verify immigration status quickly or legally. Such mandates, the lawsuit argues, are not only unrealistic but dangerous. By forcing organizations to act as de facto immigration agents, the administration risks driving vulnerable populations underground, including American citizens in mixed-status families. Legality in question Central to the lawsuit is a pointed accusation: that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by circumventing the required rulemaking process and failing to provide public notice or invite stakeholder input. Legal experts warn that if this move goes unchallenged, it could open the door to unchecked executive overreach, where vital federal funds come with ever-changing political strings attached. Ideology over infrastructure Supporters of the administration say the rules simply ensure taxpayer dollars are used lawfully. But critics argue this isn't about budgets, it's about political messaging. With the 2024 immigration debate still reverberating through Washington, this move appears aimed at energizing a base that equates enforcement with exclusion. In doing so, the administration risks dismantling local programs that serve as lifelines for the country's poorest and most marginalized communities. What comes next As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of countless community organizations hangs in the balance. If the rules are enforced, many may be forced to shut their doors, not because they failed in mission, but because they couldn't meet the paperwork. This isn't just a dispute about funding. It's a confrontation over values: Whether America's public services exist to uplift or to divide, to include or to exclude. For millions of families, citizen and non-citizen alike, the outcome of this case may decide more than policy. It may decide survival. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
As The Writers Guild Calls For An Investigation Into Colbert's Late Show Cancellation, Allegations Of An Ugly Financial Picture Are Starting To Emerge
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Even with the weekend to process, Hollywood is still in shock over CBS cancelling The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. The long-running talk show was winning its timeslot comfortably in the ratings and was widely considered a flagship show for the network, but none of that was enough to keep it on the air. It'll officially end in May of 2026, though the why behind it all is still a fierce matter of debate. When CBS announced the cancellation, it said it was purely a financial decision, but to many fans, the timing of it all is quite curious. The network is in the middle of a planned merger with Skydance, a media company run by the Ellison Family, who have close personal ties to President Trump. Earlier the same week, Colbert blasted CBS for settling a lawsuit with the President over a 60 Minutes story and paying $16M toward his Presidential Library. He called the money a 'big fat bribe' and used other colorful language to make it clear he was disappointed in his bosses. Immediately after the cancellation, The Writers Guild Of America released a statement calling on New York State Attorney General Letitia James to launch an investigation into the cancellation and whether it was due to 'political pressure.' Prominent Democratic politicians took to social media to say they were worried about the free speech implications of Colbert being muzzled and joined the calls for further investigation. Those concerns were also shared loudly and consistently by celebrities and common fans across the Internet in the days after the cancellation. New alleged information about The Late Show With Stephen Colbert's finances are starting to emerge, however, and they seem to support CBS' contention that there was a money problem. Sources told CNN that the show was losing money, and over the last year, ad rates have started 'cratering' on late night television. The late night shows across the major networks reportedly brought in $439M in ad revenue in 2018 but just $220M in 2024. That's a massive shortfall in earnings and a huge problem for a live show that requires a large dedicated staff to run. I haven't seen anyone at CBS release specific financial numbers for The Late Show, but all the rumblings seem to paint the same picture. Ad rates have fallen a lot and are continuing to fall. A lot of TV networks have been able to mitigate that for some shows by selling the streaming rights, but people aren't really interested in watching old episodes of late night talk shows. Clips going viral can be a source of revenue on social media, but ad rates on pre-rolls just aren't enough given something like The Late Show's budget. Ultimately, we don't know what happened here. If CBS and all the unnamed sources are to be believed, the show was losing money, and if the network thought the situation was only going to get worse, you can see why executives made the decision to move on. That being said, given the frankness Colbert has in criticizing President Trump and his own bosses, as well as the timing of CBS' settlement and the upcoming merger, it's easy to see why many people think there's more to this than just dollars and cents. In fact, it's always possible that both reasons played a role. Expect to hear a lot more about this story in the coming months. With nothing to lose, it's possible Colbert will be even louder in his rhetoric than he has been, and with all this interest, it's likely several journalists will attempt to really dive in and figure out exactly what happened. Solve the daily Crossword
The Herald Scotland
18 hours ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Dem AGs sue over citizenship-based cuts to Head Start, health care
"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.
