Latest news with #U.S.OfficeofManagementandBudget
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump administration federal agency layoffs
May 23 (UPI) -- A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday issued an injunction, blocking President Donald Trump from laying off thousands of federal employees working at more than 20 government agencies. The order issued by U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of California Susan Illston also bars the Department of Government Efficiency and U.S. Office of Management and Budget from making further reductions to the federal workforce. "Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed. But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that-by statute-they must carry out," Illston wrote in her 51-page ruling. "Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress's mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress." The Justice Department said in court Friday it plans to appeal the judge's decision. Trump in February issued an executive order declaring his intention to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget then began large-scale layoffs of thousands of federal employees later that month. A separate executive order in March targets a further seven agencies. The lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees seeks to block the Trump administration from carrying out those layoffs and seeks to have fired employees re-hired. Several other local governments, unions and other groups have filed similar lawsuits, calling the layoffs unlawful. The Justice Department said in court Friday it plans to appeal the judge's decision. "The defendants in this case are President Trump, numerous federal agencies, and the heads of those agencies. Defendants insist that the new administration does not need Congress's support to lay off and restructure large swathes of the federal workforce, essentially telling the Court, 'Nothing to see here.' In their view, federal agencies are not reorganizing. Rather, they have simply initiated reductions in force according to established regulations and 'consistent with applicable law.' The Court and the bystanding public should just move along," the judge wrote Friday. "Yet the role of a district court is to examine the evidence, and at this stage of the case the evidence discredits the executive's position and persuades the Court that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their suit." Friday's ruling comes a day after a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a separate injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from further layoffs at the Department of Education. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's ruling also forces the federal government to rehire Education Department employees previously let go under Trump's executive orders. "Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a preliminary injunction to pause large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations in the meantime." Illston wrote Friday.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Reed champions Head Start for leveling playing field for kids. Trump is threatening to end program.
A child in the Head Start program at the Cranston Child Development Center plays on an oversized xylophone on April 23, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) For 60 years, Head Start, a program designed to support the nation's youngest and most economically challenged children, 'has given children and parents a real opportunity,' U.S. Sen. Jack Reed said outside the Cranston Child Development Center Wednesday. But now a recently leaked document from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) suggests Head Start, which falls under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), could see its funding cut entirely as part of an agency reorganization. The prospect of eliminating Head Start funding surfaced in a leaked, 64-page budget document first shared by Inside Medicine, a Substack-hosted publication, and later verified by the Washington Post and other major news outlets. The document comprises President Donald Trump's suggestions for the HHS budget in the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1. 'Our job in government is to create opportunities, not to deny it,' Reed told the crowd gathered. 'We know that investing in early education for children, especially comprehensive, high quality Head Start, pays for itself many times.' Since its inception, the program started under President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of larger anti-poverty initiatives has served newborns through 5-year-olds, subsidizing child care, preschool and other early learning supports for families with incomes up to the poverty line. The Early Head Start program also offers services to pregnant women. Enrollment data from 2023 showed 1,610 Rhode Island kids in Head Start, and 675 kids in Early Head Start. 'The whole premise of Head Start is to have children going into kindergarten equally with children that have parents who can afford to pay for child care or send them to private schools,' said Stacy Del Vicario, vice president of child development at the Comprehensive Community Action Program (CCAP), the parent organization of the Cranston center, in an interview after the press event. HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. According to the leaked document, Trump's proposed HHS budget 'does not fund Head Start. This elimination is consistent with the Administration's goal of returning education to the States and increasing parental choice. The Federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards for any form of education.' 'Losing this program would make it so that we'd have hundreds of thousands of children that will not have access to early child care, which means that then you have parents that aren't able to work,' Del Vicario said. 'Because how are you affording child care?' It's possible that Trump's budget proposal might not inform the congressional budget at all — it serves more as an executive branch wishlist, rather than a concrete spending plan. But since Trump took office, Rhode Island's congressional delegates have hosted a flurry of press conferences designed to preempt and publicize the potential and ongoing threats to certain spending programs. On Wednesday, it was Reed alone who came to Cranston to speak in defense of the program which received around $12 billion in fiscal year 2024. Surrounded by Head Start providers and a few parents, Reed emphasized the program as a means of preparing kids for kindergarten and elementary school regardless of their background. The program, the senator said, makes 'school readiness…a family affair.' Losing this program would make it so that we'd have hundreds of thousands of children that will not have access to early child care, which means that then you have parents that aren't able to work. Because how are you affording child care? – Stacy Del Vicario, vice president of child development at the Comprehensive Community Action Program 'Now is the time to raise our voices and push back against these proposals that will undermine one of the most effective programs we have for children,' Reed said. 'The Trump administration says they want to empower parents and send education to local communities. But Head Start is already a local program.' Storm Brooks is a mother of two boys who attended Head Start and Early Head Start at the Cranston center. 'I wanted to start off the speech by mentioning how unexpected life is,' Brooks told the crowd, then recounted how her finances turned upside down when the pandemic hit in 2020. Head Start allowed her young boys in 'a trusted facility that not only meets my financial needs, but also gives me the surety that my children are safe, protected and cared for by trained professionals,' Brooks said. She added her kids have shown improvements in cognition, school and sociability since they entered the program. Reed zoomed out a bit further to consider Head Start as a way to build up young minds for future accomplishments. 'If you don't have that stimulation as a child, you won't develop your full potential, and you won't be able to give as much as you could to this country,' he said. Brooks offered a more specific example: a mother of two girls she often sees bringing her kids to the Cranston center. 'I see her Uber and Lyft her way here every morning and every afternoon, transferring her car seats to and fro from the building, making sure that her children get here safely,' Brooks said, adding that she wonders what this mother would do without Head Start. 'How much more difficult would it be for her to save up to have that vehicle for her children?' Brooks said. 'Because of Head Start, that mother is out working today to be able to do just that.' While the Head Start funding cuts may be hypothetical at the moment, the closure of regional Head Start offices is not. On April 3, Head Start providers nationwide received an email from the HHS' Administration for Children and Families that five regional offices — Boston, New York, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco — would be closed and consolidated starting on April 1. 'We were very caught off guard. Probably not as much as they were, because they literally walked to work and then it wasn't available,' Del Vicario said of the people working in the shuttered Head Start offices. Proponents of Head Start say the program has long been underfunded at both the state and federal level, leaving a limited number of eligibility slots for families. Del Vicario has worked in Rhode Island Head Start for 16 years, but said she has never seen cuts of the same magnitude as the ones in the OMB proposal. Rhode Island's delegation has 'always been so forward thinking with early childhood,' she said, but added that many states are not so lucky. 'There are a lot of states and people out there, unfortunately, that don't realize that early childhood is not just babysitting or not just putting a kid in a rocking chair,' Del Vicario said. But she also acknowledged that people who aren't raising young children might be unaware of the inner workings of the program, which she described as being tailored to 'community needs,' offering a comprehensive spectrum of child care from between four and six hours of classroom time plus access to social workers, mental health supports, nutritionists, nurses and more. CCAP's Head Start grants run on a five-year cycle, Del Vicario said, with the most recent starting in November 2024. So far the organization's funding has not been imperiled. But the closure of the regional office is troubling, she said, because it's become harder to access information. Federal contacts for technical assistance and training have remained intact, Del Vicario said, and they've been helpful in communicating what they know about the program's status. Other questions remain unanswered. 'Who do we report into? Who do we turn our grants into? Who do we ask questions?' Del Vicario wondered. 'Because we really haven't been given any names yet. They've given us this generic email kind of thing.' The lack of higher-up oversight has introduced concerns about grant compliance, Del Vicario said, as providers are still being monitored. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump didn't 'cancel cancer research,' but new NIH guidance cut funding for some medical studies
On Jan. 21, 2025, the incoming Trump administration imposed a communications freeze on U.S. health agencies until a presidential appointee could review them. That meant long-standing meetings designed to allocate grant money to medical research were canceled without indication they would be rescheduled. One of those meetings concerned cancer research. The communications freeze was set to last at least until Feb. 1, 2025, but effectively lasted until Feb. 26, when the administration partially lifted it. On Jan. 27, 2027, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, imposed a blanket freeze of "agency grant, loan, and other assistance programs" on all government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, which fund medical research. Despite a federal court order that placed a temporary restraining order on the government-wide funding freeze on Jan. 30, 2025, the administration did not resume funding. The same judge then granted a motion to enforce the TRO on Feb. 10, 2025. On Feb 7, 2025, the NIH quietly published new guidance for indirect costs allotted in grants, capping them at 15%. This change also applied to existing grants. In response, 22 states sued and obtained an injunction on this new guidance from a federal court in Massachusetts on March 5, 2025. On March 6, 2025, the NIH announced it would "centralize" grant-review meetings to "improve efficiency and strengthen integrity." People familiar with the situation argued that the move would further slow grant funding. While the administration did not stop research, these moves sowed concern in the research community and disrupted research funding. As U.S. President Donald Trump began his second term, directives his administration imposed on government agencies whose mission it is to promote health and research fueled rumors that he had defunded cancer research. While that wasn't exactly true, his new guidance did effectively end funding for some medical research. For example, the day after Trump spoke before Congress on March 4, 2025, one user posted on X that the president had "stopped child cancer research" (archived): Those claims had been spreading for weeks. Someone else had posted (archived) on X on Jan. 22, 2025, that stopping cancer research would be "sociopathic": Further, Snopes readers had searched on our site whether it was true that Trump had stopped cancer research. Meanwhile on X, a user posted (archived) that one of their friends, who had skin cancer, was about to start a clinical trial after other treatments had failed, and the trial had now been canceled: A GoFundMe page for the skin cancer patient claimed: All my appointments at MD Anderson for next week have been canceled. This as a result from the new White House administration's decision to temporarily halt funding for medical research, This also applies to clinical trials, like the one I was scheduled to start soon. Another variation of the claim appeared on Facebook and Reddit, alleging Trump had shut down "the majority of research funding." The claim followed reports that meetings of researchers at the National Institutes of Health had been canceled. In these meetings, known as review-panel or study-section meetings and advisory councils, experts of any given discipline get together to decide which research projects will receive grants from the agency. These meetings are often scheduled a year in advance, with sometimes dozens of participants, which means they can be difficult to reschedule. Canceling these meetings without rescheduling them can result in a research funding freeze. Indeed, meeting cancellations began after a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services that ordered a freeze on all communications (including meetings) and reports from health agencies, including the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, until a presidential appointee could review them: Refrain from publicly issuing any documents (e.g., regulation, guidance, notice, grant announcement) or communication (e.g., social media, websites, press releases, and communication using listservs) until it has been reviewed and approved by a presidential appointee," through February 1. In short, the Trump administration did pause those meetings until an appointee could review them, until at least Feb. 1, 2025. At the time, the Senate had not yet confirmed Trump's appointee for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the White House replied: HHS has issued a pause on mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health. This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization. There are exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical, but they will be made on a case by case basis. We contacted the agency for more clarifications on the rationale behind the review panel meeting freeze, and we did not receive a response. Communications freezes during presidential transitions have happened in the past, though the length of this pause was unprecedented. For example, for the first time since it started publishing it in 1961, the CDC failed to put out its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Indeed, a visit to its main page and a check of its past issues showed that it had been published every Thursday since at least 1982, except for Jan. 23 and Jan. 30, 2025. As HHS ordered the communications freeze, a Jan. 22, 2025, email from Glenda Conroy, director of the NIH Office of Financial Management, ordered that all travel be "suspended" immediately and indefinitely. This travel ban affected all NIH-sponsored travel, including for professional meetings and conferences where many scientists were due to make presentations. But some grant-review meetings occurred over video, so the travel ban alone did not explain why grant meetings were halted. Several people on social media platforms including Bluesky and Reddit made similar claims to the ones above. For example, a user posted on Bluesky on Jan. 22, 2025, an exchange in which people said review panel meetings had been abruptly ended as the members of the panel discussed grants: (Bluesky / @ The posts read: Original post: Colleague of mine just got back from zoom study section saying the SRO [scientific review officer] shut down the meeting while they were in the middle of discussing grants, saying some executive order wouldn't let them continue. l'm just wondering if anyone else has any info on this. At first it sounded like "diversity" initiatives might have been a factor, but now I'm wondering if there's a wider freeze. Any other tips out there? Response: My colleague was in a virtual study section that was similarly shut down by the SRO (perhaps the same one, or this is a wider issue). Someone followed up via email that the SRO was a DEI hire and was placed on leave immediately today so the meeting had to end. This is bananas. Science Magazine published a report on Jan. 22, 2025, according to which at least one meeting had been cut short and another had been canceled moments before it was due to start: Today, for example, officials halted midstream a training workshop for junior scientists, called off a workshop on adolescent learning minutes before it was to begin, and canceled meetings of two advisory councils. Panels that were scheduled to review grant proposals also received eleventh-hour word that they wouldn't be meeting. Further, several scientists who sat on panels confirmed directly that either the grant-review meetings or pre-meetings they were meant to attend had been canceled. For example, Erin Rich, an associate professor in neurology at New York University, posted on Bluesky: (Bluesky / @ Rich's assertion was confirmed by Luke Remage-Healy of the University of Massachusetts, in a reply: (Bluesky / @ Esther Choo, an emergency physician from the Oregon Health & Science University, posted something similar on Jan. 22, 2025: (Bluesky / @ Searching the calendar for study-section meetings on the NIH website, we found two different study-section meetings listed for January: one titled "Biobehavioral Medicine and Health Outcomes Study Section" and another titled "Cellular Signaling and Regulatory Systems Study Section." With an annual budget of $47 billion, the NIH is the world's largest funder of research in the medical and behavioral sciences. The cancellation or delay of study-section meetings, which dole out grant money to promising studies in those areas, worried scientists that crucial research may be delayed or abandoned for lack of funding. For example, Chrystal Starbird, a cancer researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posted on Bluesky on Jan. 22 that the study-section meeting in which she was supposed to take part had been canceled, with what she expected would be negative consequences on "critical cancer research": (Bluesky / @ In a direct message on Bluesky, Starbird told Snopes her meeting was scheduled to take place on Jan. 30 and 31, and that she had received no further information as to whether it might be rescheduled. The meeting was going to be virtual, requiring no travel. However, the communications freeze was lifted partially on Feb. 26, 2025, after Kennedy was confirmed as health secretary. The pause had impacted 16,000 grants applications, or about $1.5 billion in NIH funding, according to an NPR report. Meanwhile, on Jan. 27, 2025, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget issued a memo imposing a blanket freeze of "agency grant, loan, and other assistance programs" on all government agencies. This also impacted the NIH's ability to distribute grant money. Shortly after this, U.S. Federal Judge John McConnell, Jr., in Maryland, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding freeze. However, due to the freeze on communications, the government still withheld grant money weeks after the TRO. As the federal government failed to comply with the order, McConnell on Feb. 10, 2025, granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the TRO. Those plaintiffs included more than 20 states and the District of Columbia. The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds. […] The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO. Separately, on Feb. 7, 2025, the NIH issued new guidance on indirect costs for grants. Published late on a Friday, the guidance capped such costs to 15% of the amount of the grants. According to a congressional research paper, "indirect costs represent expenses that are not specific to a research project and that maintain the infrastructure and administrative support for federally funded research." Effective the following Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, this cost cap would apply to all new grants, and also to all existing grants. According to the same paper, in 2023 indirect costs represented 27.8% of grants awarded, or $9.4 billion. A social media post by the NIH estimated that this new guidance would save the agency $4 billion a year (archived): This near-halving of indirect costs might affect research that had already been receiving funding by the NIH. While a lump sum is awarded to a project upon approval, the money is often doled out once a year, upon review of an annual progress report. Research teams that had already negotiated grant amounts to carry our their work may have to slow or shutter their projects. In response, 22 states sued the federal government. On March 5, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts, granted their motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction on this indirect-cost cap. "The imminent risk of halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care, warranted the issuance of a nationwide temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo, until the matter could be fully addressed before the Court," Kelley wrote in the decision. Early in March 2025, the NIH began to implement changes. First, it reportedly instructed its staff to award grants only to applications that aligned with the administration's priorities, according to a report by Nature (archived). "NIH will no longer prioritize research and research training programs that focus on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)," an internal NIH document obtained by Nature read. This effectively terminated NIH-funded studies related to LGBTQ+ people, for example. Secondly, on March 6, the NIH announced it would centralize all grant reviews to the Center for Scientific Review "to improve efficiency and strengthen integrity." While 78% of grant applications go through the CSR, about 22% go through NIH Institutes and Centers. This is because some grant applications require specific expertise for review. Scientific review officers who organize such meetings need to have a deep understanding of the topic of research in order to recruit reviewers, for example. Further, the grant review schedules were different between the CSR and IC, so the existing system allowed NIH staff to spread the workload. For this and other reasons, scientists worried that the new system would slow grants, and therefore research projects. "Eighty percent of grants already go through CSR, but it would have to ramp up quickly," Choo of Oregon Health & Science University said in a direct message on Bluesky. "And so far all the admin has done is break processes, not improve them." Others expressed concern that centralizing all grant reviews might derail research for political goals. For example, someone said on Bluesky (archived): (Bluesky / @ As for the claim that the pause had resulted in clinical trials being halted at MD Anderson, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung replied that was false (archived): Contacted by email, the cancer center in Texas replied that "all active and enrolling clinical trials at MD Anderson remain ongoing." Home Page for MMWR | MMWR. 15 Jan. 2025, MMWR Weekly: Past Volumes (1982-2024) | MMWR. 6 Jan. 2025, Review Dates. Accessed 27 Jan. 2025. Kelley, Angel. Massachusetts, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of American Universities v. NIH. 1:25-cv-10338-AK, 5 Mar. 2025, Kozlov, Max. 'Revealed: NIH Research Grants Still Frozen despite Lawsuits Challenging Trump Order'. Nature, vol. 638, no. 8052, Feb. 2025, pp. 870–71. Kozlov, Max, and Smriti Mallapaty. 'Exclusive: NIH to Terminate Hundreds of Active Research Grants'. Nature, Mar. 2025. McConnell, Jr., John. Temporary Restraining Order. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS, 30 Jan. 2025, ---. 25-cv-39-JJM-PAS, 10 Feb. 2025, 'NIH Centralizes Peer Review to Improve Efficiency and Strengthen Integrity'. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 6 Mar. 2025, NIH Indirect Costs Policy for Research Grants: Recent Developments. 3 Mar. 2025, NOT-OD-25-068: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates. Accessed 7 Mar. 2025. Raymond, Nate, and Nate Raymond. 'US Judge Bars Trump Administration from Cutting NIH Research Funding'. Reuters, 5 Mar. 2025. Simmons-Duffin, Selena. 'RFK Jr. Confirmed as Trump's Health Secretary, over Democrats' Loud Objections'. NPR, 13 Feb. 2025. NPR, Stein, Rob. 'NIH Partially Lifts Freeze on Funding Process for Medical Research'. NPR, 26 Feb. 2025. NPR, Vaeth, Matthew. Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial AssistancePrograms. U.S. OMB, 27 Jan. 2025, Yanny, Anna Marie. 'Trump Administration Delays Wisconsin Research Funds by Withholding, Canceling Review Meetings'. WPR, 25 Feb. 2025,
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
First 100 days of Trump's presidency: cuts, tariffs, court pushback
March 12 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office -- a symbolic measuring stick for a new president -- are halfway through. Trump is leading a charge to cut federal spending, the federal workforce and foreign aid in his return to the White House, while also aiming to stem immigration and follow through on promises to impose tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. Here is what his administration has done in his return to the Oval Office. Firing government employees The Trump administration has undertaken a large-scale effort to cut government spending chiefly by laying off federal employees. Elon Musk, billionaire adviser to the president, has led the campaign to cut what he views as wasteful spending, along with the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump directed agencies to prepare for "large-scale reductions in force" as his administration seeks to cut more than $4 trillion in government spending. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget followed suit, issuing a memo in late February reiterating that a federal hiring freeze will remain in effect. Its guidance says that for every one employee hired, four should "depart." Nongovernmental organizations were the target of one of Trump's broad efforts to slash the federal workforce. Trump suspended foreign aid for 90 days and called for foreign aid workers abroad to return to the United States to be laid off. He ordered that the United States Agency for International Development be moved into the State Department under the purview of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The move put the jobs of more than 2,200 USAID employees on the chopping block. More than 80% of USAID programs will be canceled, according to Rubio. Foreign aid represents about 1% of the federal budget. The Trump administration gave more than 2 million federal workers an ultimatum to either return to the office full time or voluntarily resign. A federal judge temporarily paused what is being called a deferred resignation program in February before allowing it to go back into effect. On Saturday, more federal workers received the buyout offer. Employees with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were offered "Voluntary Incentive Payments" of up to $25,000 in an email from the Office of Personnel Management. They were given five business days to decide if they would accept. Layoffs have hit multiple agencies, initially focusing largely on new hires or probationary employees. Among other agencies that have begun firing employees are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Social Security Administration, Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Aviation Association. Inspectors general, federal judges and consumer watchdogs have been terminated as well. Some of the firings and funding freezes have been premature or ill-conceived, the administration admitted. During a cabinet meeting, Musk quipped that it was a mistake to cut funding for Ebola prevention. Since laying off employees with the National Nuclear Safety Administration, including employees responsible for the safekeeping of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the administration has scrambled to rehire those employees. The Department of Education is among the next agencies Trump is seeking to downsize, if not close altogether. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt disputes that Trump will sign an executive order to close the department. However, The Washington Post, NPR and ABC News report seeing a draft of the executive order. Education Secretary Linda McMahon reportedly emailed employees within the department indicating that it would be closing down. Ending DEI programs The Trump administration is dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs across all federal agencies while encouraging corporate America to follow suit. By executive order, Trump rescinded Biden administration policies aimed at establishing diversity, equity and inclusion programs in federal agencies and called for the end of "promoting diversity." The president ordered workers in those programs to be put on leave. Trump's anti-DEI push in the federal workforce contributed to the large number of layoffs among federal employees, including more than 160 Environmental Protection Agency staffers. In February, the Department of Education directed federally funded schools to end all affirmative action policies. "With this guidance, the Trump Administration is directing schools to end the use of racial preferences and race stereotypes in their programs and activities," Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a release. The Department of Housing and Urban Development canceled $4 million in contracts meant to promote diversity, equity and inclusion training, according to HUD secretary Scott Turner. Immigration Among the swath of day one actions by President Trump was the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border. Trump directed resources to the border, including military personnel, to deter immigrants from entering the United States. Trump has authorized local law enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants to be deported, even if it means entering a church or school to do so. In February, the Department of Homeland Security reported that it has arrested more than 20,000 undocumented immigrants in Trump's first month in office. The Trump administration seeks to send those arrested to their countries of origin. Some have been sent out of the United States already. Those that remain detained are held in U.S. facilities. Trump, in an attempt to expand U.S. detention capacity, has begun using the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to house some immigrants that he has described as the "worst of the worst." Detainees and their family members argue that some of them have no criminal history. More than 100 immigrants have been held in the detention facility. Guantanamo Bay houses 15 post-Sept. 11 detainees, referred to as enemy combatants, but they are held in a separate facility. On Feb. 20, Trump signed an executive order to block undocumented immigrants from receiving government benefits. Undocumented immigrants were already barred from receiving government benefits, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, before Trump signed the executive order. Tariffs The president has imposed, delayed and reworked 25% tariffs on the United States' biggest trade partners Canada and Mexico, along with a 10% tariff on China. After threatening tariffs before taking office, Trump put off enacting them for a month. He then enacted the tariffs early in March before quickly changing course and carving out exemptions in the case of Mexico. Trump has also placed a broad 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports and Tuesday threatened to double the levy to 50% before reversing course. Canada will face further tariffs on dairy and lumber products beginning April 2. In Trump's executive orders and public comments he has outlined a few reasons for his approach to tariffs. He has long thought the United States was being taken advantage of in its trade deals with Canada and Mexico. Trump also seeks to use tariffs to implore Canada and Mexico to take greater action to stem fentanyl smuggling into the United States. One of the reasons he quickly eased the tariffs on Mexico was, according to Trump, a show of good faith for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum committing resources toward stopping drug trafficking across the southern border. A relatively small amount of fentanyl has been seized while being smuggled across the northern border. Ukraine The Trump administration has taken a starkly different approach to the war in Ukraine than its predecessor, marked with a fiery Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump has expressed his desire to end the war quickly after entering office. In February, he said that Russian President Vladimir Putin "wants to stop fighting," after a call between the presidents a week prior. The White House engaged in negotiations with Russia to end the war, notably leaving Ukraine out of those talks for some time. Zelensky met with Trump at the White House on March 5 to discuss peace terms. The meeting devolved into Trump and Vice President JD Vance shouting down Zelensky, accusing him of being ungrateful and disrespectful over the United States' support for Ukraine. "It is regrettable that it happened this way," Zelensky said of the meeting in a statement. "It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive." After the meeting, the Trump administration halted sharing military intelligence with Ukraine. Trump and Zelensky had also been in talks on an agreement to assist in the reconstruction of Ukraine. The terms of the deal have not yet been finalized but it would involve Ukraine and the United States contributing to a Reconstruction Investment Fund. A share of Ukraine's proceeds from its state-owned mineral resources would be put toward the fund. The United States would control a maximum percentage of the fund's equity and financial interest allowed under U.S. law. Jan. 6 pardons Within hours of taking office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol four years earlier. Among those pardoned were convicted felons who orchestrated the attack on the Capitol, including leaders of neo-Nazi and white supremacists groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Trump's proclamation to release the rioters called their indictments a "grave national injustice." More than 1,500 people were charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, including more than 500 charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Pushback from courts A number of Trump's actions received pushback from the judicial system. One of Trump's first actions in office was an attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order. A federal judge blocked this attempt, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." Birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. "I have been on the bench for over four decades," said Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan. "I can't remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." The Trump administration appealed the decision but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the emergency motion from the Justice Department. Among Trump's broad attempts to remove the rights and protections of the transgender community was a ban on gender-affirming care for youth. Judge Brendan Hurson of the U.S. District Court of Maryland issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration over this ban in February. The ban sought to condition or withhold federal funding for healthcare facilities and professionals that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Trump also signed an executive order to ban transgender women from competing in women's sports. A very small number of transgender women have competed in women's sports in the United States. In January, as part of the Trump administration's push to examine federal spending, it froze all federal funding. The decision sparked widespread chaos as federal programs were put at risk. Programs that provide assistance to low-income families, schools, housing and healthcare were among those disrupted. Federal Judge Loren AliKhan quickly granted a motion to block the Trump administration's federal freeze and the administration rescinded the order. AliKhan called the funding freeze "ill-conceived." The Trump administration's plan to have the Office of Personnel Management identify employees across federal agencies to be fired was blocked by a federal judge on Feb. 27. The Trump administration sent out the memo to federal departments on Jan. 20 and Feb. 14. Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that the memo is illegal and the Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority to hire or fire employees in other agencies. The Trump administration was ruled to have unlawfully fired Hampton Dellinger, a Special Counsel of the Office of the Special Counsel. Dellinger, a government watchdog, was fired via email from Sergio Gor, a director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office. The Office of the Special Counsel is responsible for protecting federal employees from whistleblower retaliation or political coercion. It also investigates misconduct and enforces the Hatch Act. It is designed to be an apolitical, independent agency. On March 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must resume foreign aid payments. It was also ordered to pay about $2 billion to nonprofit aid groups that it had been withholding for work that was already completed.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
OMB tells agencies to prepare for 'large-scale' layoffs, reorganization
Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Office of Management and Budget Wednesday ordered federal agencies to submit mass layoff reorganization plans by March 13. It claims tax dollars are benefitting "radical interest groups." "The federal government is costly, inefficient, and deeply in debt," the OMB memo said. "At the same time, it is not producing results for the American public. Instead, tax dollars are being siphoned off to fund unproductive and unnecessary programs that benefit radical interest groups while hurting hardworking American citizens." The memo added, "The American people registered their verdict on the bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy on November 5, 2024, by voting for President Trump and his promises to sweepingly reform the federal government." The memo called for "a significant reduction in the number of full-time equivalent positions by eliminating positions that are not required" and "a reduced federal property footprint." The guidance included continuing a hiring federal hiring freeze "implementing the general principle that, subject to appropriate exemptions, no more than one employee should be hired for every four employees that depart." This round of mass federal job cuts targets a wider swath of workers and not just probationary employees like most recent firings. The Trump administration Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk has already induced more than 77,000 federal workers to take buyout offers. In an exclusive front-page story Wednesday the Washington Post reported that while Musk gleefully cuts federal jobs on a mission to slash federal spending, Musk's business have profited from $38 billion in federal money. "Elon Musk and his cost-cutting U.S. DOGE Service team have been on a mission to trim government largesse," the Post story said. "Yet Musk is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the taxpayers' coffers. Over the years, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits." At a Wednesday Cabinet meeting President Donald Trump claimed the cuts will be "a little more surgical" but that they will cut some federal agency staffing by ore than half and would effectively dissolve the federal Education Department. As Trump slashes federal jobs, nobody in the Executive Office of the President will have to worry about being axed in the mass firings, according to the OMB memo. The Wednesday OMB memo also excluded "positions that are necessary to meet law enforcement, border security, national security, immigration enforcement, or public safety responsibilities." Military personnel, the U.S. Postal Service and all federal uniformed personnel are also excluded from the mass firings. The mass federal firings are being challenged in court as they proceed seemingly without regard to legal requirements governing federal personnel. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Feb. 16 blocked a Trump administration effort to fire Hampton Dellinger, the Office of Special Counsel head that oversees workplace protections for federal workers. Six federal fired federal workers were reinstated for 45 days at Dellinger's request Wednesday. He said his office would continue to pursue allegations of unlawful personnel actions by the Trump administration in these firings.
