Michigan AG Dana Nessel says she will sue to block Trump's federal funding pause
"My team is working at full speed today to discern what these orders mean and the extent of their immediate impacts, and request an immediate legal remedy to restore funding provided by Congress, require this administration to comply with the law, and to stop this absurd and unprecedented attack on these programs," Nessel said in a news release.
The administration of President Donald Trump temporarily paused grant, loan and other financial assistance programs at the Office of Management and Budget, under a memorandum issued Monday.
The memo specifically excluded from the pause "assistance received directly by individuals," including Medicare and Social Security, and also appeared to exclude state welfare payments to needy families, such as food stamps, which account for close to $5.5 billion in federal spending in Michigan.
But Nessel said in a news release it appeared payments under Medicaid could be impacted by the pause, as well as Head Start, which is a preschool program.
"We are receiving reports of critical impacts to significant programs many millions of Michiganders rely upon daily for vital services," Nessel said.
The memo referenced executive orders, including those seeking to dismantle programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), signed by President Donald Trump since he took office last week.
"In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be impacted by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal," Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in the memo.
The suspension goes into effect Tuesday, Jan. 28 at 5 p.m., according to the memo.
Agencies have until Feb. 10 to submit detailed information on any programs, projects or activities subject to the pause, the memo states. Michigan's 2025 budget totals about $81.2 billion, of which just under $33.9 billion, or 42%, comes from the federal government, according to the House Fiscal Agency.
But not all of that federal money has been paused.
By state agency, the biggest recipients of federal funding are the Department of Health and Human Services ($26.6 billion); the Michigan Department of Transportation ($2.3 billion); School Aid ($2.3 billion); and the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity ($1.2 billion). Next are the Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential ($505.4 million) and the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy ($463.8 million).
More: DOJ shuts down Detroit legal program helping immigrants in court after Trump order
"The potential impact is huge," said Bob Schneider, a senior research associate at the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. But it is quite possible the freeze applies to a more limited range of federal spending programs, he said, noting the qualifier in the memorandum "to the extent permissible under federal law."
Programs delivered through the states that are already provided for under federal law, such as Medicaid, may not be covered by the pause, Schneider said.
Earlier Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said she plans to ask a Manhattan federal court to block the Republican president's moves.
Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan AG Nessel says she will sue to block Trump's funding pause
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Switzerland could revise offer on Trump tariffs, business minister says
By John Revill ZURICH (Reuters) -The Swiss government is open to revising its offer to the United States in response to planned heavy tariffs, Business Minister Guy Parmelin said, as experts warned the 39% import duties announced by President Donald Trump could trigger a recession in Switzerland. Switzerland was left stunned on Friday after Trump hit the country with one of the highest tariffs in his global trade reset, with industry associations warning of tens of thousands of jobs being put at risk. The country's cabinet will hold a special meeting on Monday to discuss its next steps, with Parmelin telling broadcaster RTS that the government would move quickly before the U.S. tariffs are imposed on August 7. "We need to fully understand what happened, why the U.S. president made this decision. Once we have that on the table, we can decide how to proceed," Parmelin said. "The timeline is tight, it may be hard to achieve something by the 7th, but we'll do everything we can to show goodwill and revise our offer," he added. Parmelin said Trump was focused on the U.S. trade deficit with Switzerland, which stood at 38.5 billion Swiss francs ($48 billion) last year, with Switzerland buying U.S liquefied natural gas (LNG) among the options under consideration. Another option could be further investments by Swiss companies in the United States, Switzerland's biggest export market for its pharmaceuticals, watches and machinery. "Look at the European Union, they promised to buy LNG. Switzerland imports LNG too — maybe that's one path," Parmelin said. "Maybe more investments. But to be sure it's a strong enough basis for continuing talks, we have to fully understand what the U.S. expects." Both Parmelin and Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter were also ready to travel to Washington to pursue talks if necessary, he added. Swiss officials rejected reports that the higher than expected tariffs were imposed after a bad-tempered telephone call between Keller-Sutter and Trump late on Thursday. "The call was not a success, there was not a good outcome for Switzerland," a government source told Reuters. "But there was not a quarrel. Trump made it clear from the very beginning that he had a completely different point of view, that 10% tariffs were not enough. "We are working hard to find a solution and are in contact with the American side," the source added. "We hope we can find a solution before August 7." Tariffs would have a huge impact on Switzerland's export-orientated economy and raised the risk of a recession, said Hans Gersbach, an economist at ETH, a university in Zurich. Swiss economic output would be reduced by 0.3% to 0.6% if the 39% tariff was imposed, a figure which could rise to above 0.7% if pharmaceuticals - which are currently not covered by the U.S. import duties - were included. Prolonged disruptions could shrink Swiss GDP by more 1%, Gersbach said. "There would be a risk of a recession," Gersbach said. Swiss shares are expected to be hit by the tariffs news when the stock market reopens on Monday after being closed during the Swiss National Day holiday on Friday. The tariffs could also see the Swiss National Bank cut interest rates in September, said Nomura. "We expect one more 25bp policy rate cut from the SNB in September, which would take the rate to -0.25%," the bank said. "A hit to growth from U.S. tariffs on exports would likely weaken economic growth and cause further deflation pressures, adding to the likelihood of easing to a negative policy rate." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's former jobs data chief decries firing of successor
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump's firing of the chief labor statistician was criticized by her predecessor, who called it an unfounded move that will undermine confidence in a key data set on the US economy. We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Seeking Relief From Heat and Smog, Cities Follow the Wind Chicago Curbs Hiring, Travel to Tackle $1 Billion Budget Hole NYC Mayor Adams Gives Bally's Bronx Casino Plan a Second Chance 'This is damaging,' William Beach, whom Trump picked in his first term to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. Trump on Friday fired Erika McEntarfer hours after labor market data showed weak jobs growth based in part on steep downward revisions for May and June. The move by Trump, who claimed the latest monthly report was 'phony,' prompted an outcry from economists and lawmakers. 'I don't know that there's any grounds at all for this firing,' said Beach, whom McEntarfer replaced in January 2024. 'And it really hurts the statistical system. It undermines credibility in BLS.' Studies indicate that the agency's data is more accurate than 20 or 30 years ago, including any revisions of the initial data, Beach said. Even so, he said he'll trust future BLS data because people working for the agency are 'some of the most loyal Americans you can imagine,' making the bureau 'the finest statistical agency in the entire world.' Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, speaking Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, urged the US government to improve its data collection to avoid revisions that engender distrust. 'We watch what consumers really do. We watch what businesses really do,' Moynihan said, while not addressing the politics of the firing. 'They can get this data, I think, other ways, and I think that's where the focus would be.' He noted the revision for May and June data, while not unusual, was one of the largest in seven years. 'That creates doubt around it,' he said. 'Let's spend some money. Let's bring the information together. Let's find where else in the government money is reported.' McEntarfer was confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan 86-8 vote. Vice President JD Vance, then a senator, voted to approve her nomination. Kevin Hassett, Trump's chief economic adviser at the White House, alleged that the large jobs data revisions were poorly explained and were evidence enough for a 'fresh set of eyes' at BLS. He sought to contradict Beach's portrayal of the agency as politically neutral. 'The bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers,' Hassett said on NBC's Meet the Press. Pressed on whether Trump would fire anyone offering data he disagreed with, Hassett, who heads the National Economic Council, disagreed. 'No, absolutely not,' he said. 'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable.' How Podcast-Obsessed Tech Investors Made a New Media Industry Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts What's Really Behind Those Rosy GDP Numbers? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
22 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
BRN: The Social Security COLA and what it means
Since 1975, Social Security general benefit increases have been cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs (8%). Many people were disappointed when Social Security benefits only rose 2.5% at the start of the 2025. And, so far, next year's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) does not look to be much higher. TheStreet's Maurie Backman joins Broadcast Retirement Network host Jeff Snyder to talk about the annual increase. Transcript: Jeff Snyder: This morning on BRN, the impacts of the 2025 Social Security COLA. Joining me now to discuss this and a lot more, Maurie Backman is a senior financial journalist. Maurie, happy new year. Great to see you. Thanks for joining us on the program this morning. Maurie Backman: Thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about Social Security because, you know, a new year means changes to the program, as always. Snyder: Yeah, let's talk about that, Maurie. And, you know, I think our audience is very familiar with your work because you've been on the program numerous times before. Let's talk about the cost of living adjustment or COLA for 2025. What is it and what does it mean? Backman: Sure. So years back, lawmakers decided that Social Security benefits were going to be eligible for automatic COLA. The COLA was going to be pegged to inflation so that, you know, inflation rises, benefits get a little bit of a boost. And when you think about it, I mean, it makes sense to have COLAs be automatic as opposed to needing, you know, Congress to vote in a raise to Social Security benefits year after year. It just makes the process a lot more seamless. And logically, you know, there are people who collect Social Security for 15, 20, 30 years, and the value of a dollar is going to get eroded over a period that lengthy. So we need Social Security COLAs to enable seniors to be able to maintain their buying power as living costs go up. So every year, Social Security gets a COLA. Well, actually, I shouldn't say that. Every year, Social Security is eligible for a COLA. When inflation remains flat, Social Security benefits remain flat. When there's a decrease in inflation from one year to the next, Social Security benefits also remain flat. Luckily, there's no such thing as a negative COLA. So you're not going to see your Social Security benefit decrease, thankfully, from one year to the next, even if inflation goes that route. You're only going to see your benefit stay the same or go up. Snyder: Yeah. And can you imagine, Mark, if there was a negative COLA and they started trying to reclaim Social Security benefits? Can you imagine all the people that would be lined up at the Social Security Administration? Good for them that they don't have a negative COLA. Maurie, let's talk about inflation because we have seen over the last year plus food prices increase, gasoline prices increase, other prices increase. How does this COLA factor that in and how does it compare maybe to previous years? Backman: Sure. So, you know, thankfully, inflation has cooled pretty nicely over the past year. We're not seeing the same levels of inflation that we did back in 2021 on the heels of all those stimulus policies. We're not seeing the same level of inflation as 2022. The funny thing about Social Security COLAs and inflation is that, you know, the way I've always tried to explain it is they sort of cancel each other out. So this year's COLA is 2.5%. Benefits are rising 2.5%. And a lot of seniors are, frankly, bummed about that because when we look back to recent COLAs, the year before benefits went up 3.2%. Before that, we had some of the largest COLAs in history. We had 8.7%. We had 5.9%. These were the COLAs that came about following that period of real rampant inflation that we saw following the pandemic. So, you know, a lot of people are pretty up in arms about this 2.5% COLA. Oh, it's not enough. It's such a measly little raise. But the thing to remember is that because COLAs are tied to inflation, when you have a not so generous COLA, it also means that inflation hasn't been all that bad. You kind of can't have one without the other. Right. So, you know, when seniors were seeing their benefits rise almost 6 percent or close to 9 percent, I mean, all those COLAs did was match inflation. So what you gain in one regard, you gain a higher boost, a larger boost to your Social Security benefit. You lose in the form of prices really going up a lot significantly from one year to the next. So in the past year, what we've seen is, yes, we have seen costs continue to go up. And look, I'm not retired, but I've seen my own bills increase exponentially. And I've got a family to feed. And it's stressful. It's stressful going to the supermarket and buying like six yogurts and a jug of milk and a loaf of bread. And it's like, that'll be $22.50. And it's like, what? This was like, these are groceries that I'm carrying out in my hand, you know, and a week's worth of food for my family. I mean, it seems like I'm paying more than ever. So I'm definitely sympathetic to seniors who feel that, you know, their 2.5 percent COLA is not really going to cut it for 2025. I can see where they're coming from because costs are still high. But things could also be worse. Related: Secretary Bessent's Social Security remarks spark AARP outcry Snyder: Well, they could be worse. Maurie, they could be a lot worse. I want to ask you about taxation, because how does taxation or does taxation factor into this cost of living adjustment? Does that mean anything to those directly taking Social Security? Backman: So it's a funny thing. So seniors are often shocked to learn that Social Security benefits can be taxable at the federal level. There can also be state taxes on Social Security, actually, depending on the state you live in and the amount of your total income. But the federal government can tax a portion of your Social Security benefits. And that doesn't sit well for a lot of seniors. It almost feels kind of like a double taxation, right? Because throughout our working years, we're all paying into Social Security on our wages. And, you know, the promise is that you're going to pay taxes, you're going to pay into Social Security, but then when you're older and retired, you're going to get a monthly benefit. And then it's like, hey, guess what? You're not necessarily going to keep that monthly benefit in full because once your income exceeds a certain threshold, a portion of your benefits can be taxed. Now, here's the problem. Social Security is eligible for an annual COLA, which means that benefits historically have risen from one year to the next. There have been a few years in history with a zero COLA. But for the most part, we have seen benefits rise from one year to the next. The problem is that the income thresholds that determine whether you're going to pay taxes on your Social Security benefits, those income thresholds have not increased since 1984. That's a long time ago. Snyder: I was 12. Backman: I was around. It was a long time ago. So, you know, when you kind of just then logically put those two pieces together, it's like, well, wait a minute, you know, Social Security benefits rise every year, and Social Security benefits are calculated in the formula that determines your income and that determines whether your income is high enough to have your benefits taxed, if you get what I'm saying. Basically, it's a concept called combined income. It's a factor of your adjusted gross income. It throws in any tax-exempt interest income you receive, like if you're a municipal bond investor, you might get some tax-free income. That's counted into your combined income and then also half of your annual Social Security benefit is factored into your combined income. And basically, if you're single, once your combined income is $25,000 or higher, you're going to be paying taxes on a portion of your Social Security benefits. Now, let's think about that. $25,000. I mean, you know, yes, that's factoring in half your annual Social Security benefit, but even if we want to pad that by another $10,000, $12,000, let's talk about $37,000 a year, $40,000 a year. Are you like rolling in dough at $40,000 a year? I'm not. Snyder: No, you're typically, you know, especially if you're a retiree, you're at a fixed income. And so, you know, one of the things I want to ask you about, I want to kind of close on this, is you talked about taxation now during the campaign, we're not a political show, but, you know, there were some policy preferences or suggestions about eliminating the tax on Social Security. First, Maurie, is that possible? And what would that mean to our conversation this morning about the cost of living adjustment? Related: Medicare beneficiaries quietly face looming crisis Backman: So, that's a tricky thing too, because so President-elect Trump had pledged to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. And a big part of me wants to say that that's a really good idea, because there's a lot of people whose income is really right above that threshold where they're liable for taxes, right? But since we just discussed that it was such a low threshold, these people cannot afford to lose some of their benefits to taxes. So, in that regard, I think eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits could be a positive thing. But then we also have to remember that Social Security doesn't just get funded by payroll taxes, it also gets funded by these taxes on benefits. Now, as it stands, we are already looking at a funding shortfall for Social Security. The program's combined trust funds are set to run dry in 2035. And at that point, benefit cuts could be on the table. So, now we have to balance the upside of not taxing Social Security so that seniors get to keep their benefits in full now versus the potential downside of, well, then what does that do to Social Security's overall financial picture? And what does that mean for benefit cuts down the line? It's a very tricky thing, and I do not envy lawmakers who have to make these decisions. And Jeff, to be clear, there's a push to not only end taxes on Social Security benefits, but also to change the way Social Security COLAs are calculated. That's a whole other issue because the reality is that the formula that's used now is not very beneficial to seniors. It really does not very accurately capture the costs that seniors specifically tend to incur. So, lawmakers really have their work cut out for them in the coming years with regard to Social Security. Snyder: They certainly do, Maurie. We've got a new Congress, a new president. Hey, look, they can't kick the can down the road too much longer because they're going to have to deal with other potential challenges. Maurie, it's always great to see you. Expert Analysis, as always. Thanks so much for joining us, and we look forward to having you back on the program again very soon. Backman: That's it. Snyder: And don't forget to subscribe to our daily newsletter, The Morning Pulse, for all the news in one place. Details, of course, at our website. And we're back again tomorrow for another edition of BRN. Until then, I'm Jeff Snyder. Stay safe, keep on saving, and don't forget, roll with the changes. Related: Jean Chatzky shares retirement tips on Social Security, Medicare The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
