Latest news with #Neronha
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
‘We're not in a good place': R.I. attorney general looks to speed up sale of Roger Williams, Fatima hospitals
'I can't stand here today and tell Rhode Islanders... that these hospitals will be running and robust 18 months from now. I don't know that,' Neronha said at a press conference on Thursday. 'We have two hospitals here, who frankly could have actually closed.' Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Prospect Medical Holdings, a for-profit hospital chain that operates safety-net hospitals including Roger Williams and Fatima, Since late 2022, Prospect has been trying to sell its two Rhode Island hospitals. In June 2024, Rhode Island state regulators approved the terms of a deal to sell them to The Centurion Foundation, which is based in Georgia. Their approval came Advertisement Centurion's counsel approached Neronha this month to negotiate. 'Centurion was having difficulty selling bonds for that initial hospital funding bucket,' he said. Under the revised conditions, Centurion will need to have $45 million in cash to take over the hospitals, which is down from $80 million that was previously required in Neronha's June 2024 conditions. In addition, Centurion has agreed to secure up to $35 million within 90 days of closing. 'This is an important step forward as we move through the bond and financing process and finalizing the sale to help secure the future of these essential hospitals and 2,400 employees,' said Otis Brown, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island hospitals and for The Centurion Foundation. Neronha will require that Centurion and the new system formed after the sale not contest his office if it files a petition to appoint a receiver of the new system if it fails to pay any principal or interest under any future bond financing. Prospect also owns hospitals in Pennsylvania and three hospitals in Connecticut. The hospitals in Pennsylvania are being sold off as real estate assets, because they could not identify a buyer, said Neronha. The fate of the hospitals in Connecticut 'remain up in the air,' Neronha said. While Prospect has struggled to sell off its hospitals in other states, the challenges it faces in Rhode Island should be seen in the larger context of how its difficult to operate health care businesses in the state, Neronha said. Advertisement 'We are not in a good place,' said Neronha. Alexa Gagosz can be reached at
Boston Globe
21-07-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
R.I., Mass., among states suing Trump administration over immigration status-based restrictions to safety net programs
The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Providence, asks the court to halt the new federal rules and act quickly to ensure continued access to the social services programs. '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,'' the lawsuit states. 'This is not America, and it is not the law.' Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Rhode Island Attorney General Advertisement 'By changing the rules with no notice, agencies and organizations that receive federal funding for critical services must quickly pivot or risk shuttering,' Neronha said in a statement. 'For example, if access to mental health and substance use disorder services is lessened or eliminated, already overburdened hospitals across the country could become further overwhelmed. These federal funding streams are critically important to the health and well-being of all Rhode Islanders, as well as our health care system, and we will fight to ensure they remain uninterrupted.' Advertisement Attorneys general from every New England state except New Hampshire joined the lawsuit, along with Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. People in the country illegally are ineligible for federal public benefits such as food stamps, student loans and financial aid for higher education. However, they have been able to access community-level programs. And, for nearly 30 years and through five presidential administrations, according to the lawsuit, the federal government was consistent on the requirements of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, known as PRWORA. States needed to verify a person's lawful status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. At the same time, the federal agencies told the states that PRWORA didn't require them to check someone's papers to allow them access to other community programs, such as food banks, Head Start, shelters, or rehabilitation clinics. Not anymore. On July 10, the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Justice changed the rules. The new rules restrict states from using federal funds to provide services to individuals who cannot verify immigration status. That means state safety net programs — soup kitchens, domestic violence shelters, Head Start, crisis counseling centers, senior nutrition programs, health centers in schools — must screen for immigration status. Under the new rules, undocumented immigrants will be prevented from Advertisement The Departments of Education and Labor placed education and workforce training programs within the statute's scope. The rules took effect with minimal notice and affect not only undocumented immigrants, but also, Neronha said, some lawful visa holders and even US citizens who lack access to formal documentation. The state programs are expected to comply immediately, but most providers can't implement major regulatory changes overnight, so they face losing federal funding. Neronha said these abrupt restrictions could impact the 'tens of millions' of dollars funding programs related to opioid treatment, homeless services, and mental health program in all public schools in Rhode Island, according to the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities & Hospitals. Funding changes to those community programs could lead to a health care crisis. The lawsuit argues that the federal government acted unlawfully by issuing these changes without following required procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, and by misapplying PRWORA to entire programs rather than to individual benefits. The changes also violate the Constitution's Spending Clause by imposing new funding conditions on states without fair notice or consent. The coalition is asking the court to declare the new rules unlawful, halt their implementation through preliminary and permanent injunctions, vacate the rules and restore the long-standing agency practice, and prevent the federal government from using PRWORA as a pretext to dismantle core safety net programs in the future. Amanda Milkovits can be reached at
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, DC, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programmes and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over," the plaintiffs argued. "The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities." Live Events The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a "slash-and-burn campaign" to cut federal grants. "Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programmes," the lawsuit added. The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request made Tuesday afternoon for comment. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. "It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions," Neronha said in a statement. "Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programmes and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called agency priorities clause." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. "There is no because I don't like you' or because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong said in a statement. "Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding." In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a USD 11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a USD 1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. "We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy," Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the programme goals or agency priorities". "The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause-'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'-provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programmes for which Congress has appropriated funding," the lawsuit said.
25-06-2025
- Politics
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON -- Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request made Tuesday afternoon for comment. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump admin's funding cuts
The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities AP Boston Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, DC, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programmes and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over, the plaintiffs argued. The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities. The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a slash-and-burn campaign to cut federal grants. Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programmes, the lawsuit added. The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request made Tuesday afternoon for comment. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions, Neronha said in a statement. Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programmes and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called agency priorities clause." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. There is no because I don't like you' or because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong said in a statement. Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding. In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a USD 11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a USD 1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy, Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the programme goals or agency priorities. The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programmes for which Congress has appropriated funding, the lawsuit said.
