Latest news with #attorneysgeneral
New York Times
5 days ago
- Health
- New York Times
Four States Ask F.D.A. to Lift Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill
In a strategy aimed at countering efforts to further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, attorneys general of four states that support abortion rights on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to do the opposite and lift the most stringent remaining restrictions on the pill. The petition filed by Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey might seem surprising given the opposition to abortion expressed by Trump administration officials. But the attorneys general consider it a move that would require the F.D.A. to acknowledge extensive scientific research that has consistently found mifepristone safe and effective, said an official with the Massachusetts attorney general's office who worked on the filing and asked not to be named in order to share background information. It would also prevent the F.D.A. from changing mifepristone regulations while the petition is pending. The petition notes that at a May senate hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, responded to questions by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who opposes abortion, by saying he had ordered the F.D.A. to do a 'complete review' of mifepristone. 'We want to make sure that when F.D.A. is making these decisions that they have all the data in front of them, all of the really powerful data that show that mifepristone is safe' the Massachusetts official said. The F.D.A. is required to respond within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. In its responses, the agency must document its position, which could be useful in lawsuits, including one that the four states could file if their petition is denied. Mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for pregnancy development, was approved for abortion in America in 2000. The F.D.A. imposed an additional regulatory framework called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, on mifepristone. That framework has been used for only about 300 drugs, currently covering only about 60 medications. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Democratic attorneys general outline response to federal government during Seattle town hall
Jun. 2—Just over four months into President Donald Trump's second administration, the rate and frequency with which Democratic attorneys general have challenged federal policy has greatly outpaced that of his first term in office. In the past 19 weeks, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown has filed 20 lawsuits against the federal government and indicated more are likely to follow soon. According to Brown, Washington had filed two lawsuits at a similar point in Trump's first term. The lawsuits have frequently been brought by multistate coalitions, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield each joining Washington in more than a dozen of the cases. Ahead of a town hall event Monday, the three attorneys general said the actions are part of a coordinated effort. "A very increased type of action being brought by the states," Brown said during a news conference Monday evening. "That is reflective of one, being extremely prepared for this moment, two, the collaboration amongst the states, and three, a level of lawlessness and recklessness by the Trump administration that was not there the first time. And we as attorneys general need to respond." The Community Impact Town Hall on Monday offered a forum for community members to voice their concerns over the loss of funding or other cuts to federal programs and ask about their state's response to the Trump administration. Audience questions included how states could ensure funds for medical research are properly distributed and what steps the states have taken to restrict local law enforcement from enforcing immigration law. Like Washington, both Oregon and California have long had state laws that limit the amount of information local authorities can provide immigration officials. California's law, Bonta said, was challenged during the first Trump administration, with the state successfully arguing "it was an unlawful violation of the tenth amendment for the Trump administration to try and conscript or commandeer our resources for our local law enforcement to be used for immigration enforcement." In recent months, the Keep Washington Working Act has frequently drawn ire from Republican lawmakers and prompted a Congressional investigation. The 2019 law restricts local law enforcement from using local resources to help federal officials enforce immigration law and prevents local law enforcement from sharing nonpublic information with federal officials, except in certain scenarios. Last month, the three states filed lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation, alleging that both agencies had recently sought to stipulate that a state must cooperate with federal immigration officials to receive federal funding. "When they try to take the funding away to compel action, we will stand in place to protect our sanctuary state laws that exist up and down the West Coast," Rayfield said. "I feel very fortunate, again, to be on the West Coast." It appears that more lawsuits challenging federal immigration efforts could come in the near future. Late last week, the Department of Homeland Security published a list of "sanctuary jurisdictions" that it claimed do not fully cooperate with federal immigration law. Trump, who ordered the publication of the list, has said those on the list risk the loss of federal funds. According to the list, qualification for the list was "determined by factors like compliance with federal law enforcement, information restrictions, and legal protections for illegal aliens." The list, however, received immediate pushback from some of those who appeared on it. On Saturday, Kieran Donahue, president of the National Sheriffs' Association, said in a statement that the list "was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label." "This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome," Donahue said, adding the list should be taken down "immediately." While the list was taken down Sunday, an archived version shows that Washington, along with 35 counties and five cities within the state, were among the more than 500 jurisdictions it mentioned. Both California and Oregon also appeared on the list. On Monday, Brown called the list "laughable" and said it "really adds to the fact that this is arbitrary and capricious action by the Trump administration." "We as attorneys general have to take those threats seriously and reaffirm state sovereignty," Brown said. "Each of our states has adopted different policies over how local and state officials can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officials. We do that to keep the public safe and make sure that people who are the victims of crime can cooperate fairly and freely with law enforcement without fear of immigration enforcement actions against them."
Reuters
28-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
States sue over Trump cuts to research funding, STEM diversity efforts
May 28 (Reuters) - A group of U.S. states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to block the administration of President Donald Trump from making massive cuts to federal funding for scientific research and projects focused on increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. The attorneys general of 16 states, including New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey, say the Trump administration lacks the power to cap research funding and eliminate diversity programs provided by the National Science Foundation that were mandated by Congress. The lawsuit, opens new tab was filed in Manhattan federal court. Earlier this month, 13 major U.S. universities sued over NSF's decision to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs such as lab space and equipment at 15%, which mirrored funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy that judges have temporarily blocked. Wednesday's lawsuit also challenges the cap at NSF along with the elimination of programs designed to boost the participation of women, minorities and people with disabilities in STEM fields. The states say both efforts could cause the U.S. to lose its position as a global leader in STEM research. "Institutions will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff," they said. The NSF declined to comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House has proposed slashing NSF's $8.8 billion budget by more than 55%, and said it plans to restructure and drastically downsize the agency. New York Attorney General Letitia James said people use technology made possible by NSF funding every time they go online, scan a barcode at a store, or get an MRI scan. 'This administration's attacks on basic science and essential efforts to ensure diversity in STEM will weaken our economy and our national security," James, a Democrat, said in a statement. The states claim that the reimbursement cap would devastate scientific research at universities throughout the country. James' office said New York state universities received $104 million in NSF funding last year, which supported research into microelectronics, climate research and battery technology. They claim the cap and the elimination of diversity programs violate a federal law barring "arbitrary and capricious" actions by agencies, and violate the constitutional separation of powers by encroaching on funding decisions made by Congress.
CNA
16-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
AI regulation ban meets opposition from state attorneys general over risks to US consumers
A Republican proposal to block states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years drew opposition on Friday from a bipartisan group of attorneys general in California, New York, Ohio and other states that have regulated high-risk uses of the technology. The measure included in President Donald Trump's tax cut bill would preempt AI laws and regulations passed recently in dozens of states. A group of 40 state attorneys general, including Republicans from Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah and Virginia and other states, urged Congress to ditch the measure on Friday, as the U.S. House of Representatives' budget committee geared up for a Sunday night hearing. "Imposing a broad moratorium on all state action, while Congress fails to act in this area is irresponsible and deprives consumers of reasonable protections," said the group. The attorney general from California - which is home to prominent AI companies, including OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta Platforms and Anthropic - was among the Democrats who signed the letter. "I strongly oppose any effort to block states from developing and enforcing common-sense regulation; states must be able to protect their residents by responding to emerging and evolving AI technology," Attorney General Rob Bonta said. California implemented a raft of bills this year limiting specific uses of AI, illustrating the kind of laws that would be blocked under the moratorium. Like several other states, California has criminalized the use of AI to generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. The state also prohibits unauthorized deepfakes in political advertising, and requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they are interacting with an AI and not a human. Healthcare provider networks, also known as HMOs, are barred in California from using AI systems instead of doctors to decide medical necessity. House Republicans said in a hearing Tuesday that the measure was necessary to help the federal government in implementing AI, for which the package allocates $500 million. "It's nonsensical to do that if we're going to allow 1,000 different pending bills in state legislatures across the country to become law," said Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California who represents part of Silicon Valley, including Mountain View where Google is based. "It would be impossible for any agency that operates in all the states to be able to comply with those regulations," he said. Google has called the proposed moratorium "an important first step to both protect national security and ensure continued American AI leadership." That position will be tested if the measure makes it to the Senate. It will need to clear the budget reconciliation process, which is supposed to be used only for budget-related legislation.
Reuters
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
AI regulation ban meets opposition from state attorneys general over risks to US consumers
May 16 (Reuters) - A Republican proposal to block states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years drew opposition on Friday from a bipartisan group of attorneys general in California, New York, Ohio and other states that have regulated high-risk uses of the technology. The measure included in President Donald Trump's tax cut bill would preempt AI laws and regulations passed recently in dozens of states. A group of 40 state attorneys general, including Republicans from Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah and Virginia and other states, urged Congress to ditch the measure on Friday, as the U.S. House of Representatives' budget committee geared up for a Sunday night hearing. "Imposing a broad moratorium on all state action, while Congress fails to act in this area is irresponsible and deprives consumers of reasonable protections," said the group. The attorney general from California -- which is home to prominent AI companies, including OpenAI, Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab and Anthropic -- was among the Democrats who signed the letter. "I strongly oppose any effort to block states from developing and enforcing common-sense regulation; states must be able to protect their residents by responding to emerging and evolving AI technology," Attorney General Rob Bonta said. California implemented a raft of bills this year limiting specific uses of AI, illustrating the kind of laws that would be blocked under the moratorium. Like several other states, California has criminalized the use of AI to generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. The state also prohibits unauthorized deepfakes in political advertising, and requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they are interacting with an AI and not a human. Healthcare provider networks, also known as HMOs, are barred in California from using AI systems instead of doctors to decide medical necessity. House Republicans said in a hearing Tuesday that the measure was necessary to help the federal government in implementing AI, for which the package allocates $500 million. "It's nonsensical to do that if we're going to allow 1,000 different pending bills in state legislatures across the country to become law," said Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California who represents part of Silicon Valley, including Mountain View where Google is based. "It would be impossible for any agency that operates in all the states to be able to comply with those regulations," he said. Google has called the proposed moratorium "an important first step to both protect national security and ensure continued American AI leadership." That position will be tested if the measure makes it to the Senate. It will need to clear the budget reconciliation process, which is supposed to be used only for budget-related legislation.
