Trump freezes $6 billion in public school funds right before school year begins
According to ABC News, a terse memo issued on June 30 confirmed that no grant award notifications would be issued 'prior to completing that review.'The delay comes mere days before millions of students return to classrooms, raising fears among educators and policymakers that key services may be cut, scaled back or postponed.LEGAL CHALLENGES AND CRITICISM MOUNTMore than 20 states, led by California and Connecticut, have filed lawsuits against the administration, calling the funding freeze unlawful and warning of grave harm to vulnerable students. Connecticut alone estimates a loss of USD 53.6 million for the 2025-26 academic year.This legal action is taking place amid escalating tensions: a recent Supreme Court decision lifted a block on the administration's plan to cut nearly 1,400 staff positions at the Department of Education.Critics argue this move undermines civil rights enforcement and federal student-aid systems.FROZEN GRANTS PUT PRESSURE ON PROGRAMMESThe frozen funds include those for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (supporting after-school and summer programmes), adult literacy, English learner instruction, and teacher professional development.Education Week reported that USD 1.4 billion of these funds have since been approved and released, but over USD 5 billion remains frozen.Education advocates and local districts are warning that this sudden withholding could force cutbacks in staffing, early literacy support, and special education services.Mark Lieberman of Education Week observed that an abrupt loss of Title IV-B grants, which provide after-school enrichment, puts around 1.4million children at risk, with some programmes already starting to scale down.CONCERNS ON EQUITY AND OUTCOMESCivil rights groups and educational researchers say the funding cutbacks disproportionately affect rural students, English learners, rural communities, and students with disabilities.Teaching unions fear larger class sizes and stretched resources. As Becky Pringle of the NEA put it, the cuts are a 'slap in the face' for educators and learners.Lawmakers, including ten Republican senators, have urged the administration to restore the withheld funds, sparking a review into after-school programmes. On July 18, funding for these services was partly released, following bipartisan pressure.IS THIS A POLITICAL TARGETING OF BLUE STATES?While the memo issued is national, critics point out that many of the states hardest hit -- like California, New York, Connecticut, and Illinois -- lean Democrat and have traditionally been strong supporters of public education funding.Some lawmakers argue that the freeze may indirectly penalise states that oppose the administration's broader education and civil rights policies, though no official link has been made public.LOOKING AHEADadvertisementWith legal proceedings ongoing and bills pending, the future of the remaining USD 5 billion in frozen grants is uncertain.Districts must decide whether to begin the school year amid funding gaps. Critics warn the cuts could have long-lasting effects on student learning and equity, unless Congress or the courts intervene swiftly.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines read more CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
38 minutes ago
- First Post
White House mulls inspection of Federal Reserve HQ as Trump vs Powell feud intensifies
The White House budget director, Russell Vought, told reporters that the administration wanted to have an on-site inspection of the Fed's troubled $2.5bn building renovations amid a feud between US President Donald Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell read more US President Donald Trump announces Jerome Powell as his nominee to become chairman of the US Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, US, November 2, 2017. File Image/Reuters As the feud between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell intensifies, reports are emerging that the White House is pushing for an inspection of the US Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC. The move is coming at a time when Trump has suggested that the American central bank has mismanaged funds for building renovations. Ever since coming back to the White House, Trump has been pressuring Powell to quit, demanding that he and other officials lower the interest rates. Meanwhile, Powell has argued that lowering the rates prematurely could increase inflation since Trump tariffs have already contributed significantly to raising the prices of goods. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In response to the Fed Chair's resistance, Trump has threatened to fire Powell multiple times, with Powell stating that he will serve the post until his term ends. On Friday, Trump went on to float the idea of firing Powell to House Republicans. 'I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely unless he has to leave for fraud," the president said at the dinner with Republican senators. Why is the White House interested in searching the Federal Reserve headquarters? On Thursday, the White House budget director, Russell Vought, told reporters that the administration wanted to have an on-site inspection of the Fed's troubled $2.5bn building renovations. 'I think the president was pretty clear yesterday: he's unlikely to fire the chairman, but he has substantial concerns about how he's managed the Fed,' Vought averred. However, firing the Federal Reserve Chair would not be an easy task. The Supreme Court in the spring went out of its way to say that, while Trump can fire certain officials, like those on national labour boards, the Fed is different. 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,' the court said in May. If Trump went ahead and fired Powell, he might have to undergo a complicated battle with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Wall Street is also not taking Trump's ambition to fire Powell very well. 'The independence of the Fed is absolutely critical,' the JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, said on Tuesday. 'Not just for the current Fed chairman, who I respect, but for the next Fed chairman.' It is pertinent to note that Powell's term is set to end in May 2026, but Trump appears to be hopeful that recent renovations at the Fed make Powell an easier target. According to The Guardian, renovations were initially slated to cost $1.9bn after it was budgeted in 2019, but costs have risen to $2.5bn. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Fed argued that the renovations cover two buildings that have 'not been comprehensively renovated since their construction in the 1930s'. On Wednesday, Trump said that 'there may be fraud involved with the $2.5bn'. Trump also said that Powell was a ' terrible Fed chair' and that he 'was surprised he was appointed'. Interestingly, it was Trump who appointed Powell to the job in 2018. Former US President Joe Biden eventually extended his term in 2022.
Scroll.in
38 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the Supreme Court's new push to regulate social media threatens free expression
This week, three separate benches of the Supreme Court spoke of restricting freedom of speech on social media. On Monday, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Kolkata-based Wazahat Khan seeking the consolidation of first information reports registered against him in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana over his social media posts. In his posts, Khan had made allegedly offensive remarks about Hindu deities and festivals. Since last month, he has been under arrest for the posts by the West Bengal Police. The bench continued the interim protection the court had granted Khan from arrest in the cases registered outside Bengal. But during the hearing, Nagarathna called for citizens to 'regulate themselves' on social media and exercise 'self restraint … to enjoy' the right to free speech and expression. She noted that the 'abuse of that freedom' was leading to the 'clogging of courts' – without providing any data to support this claim. She then called for 'guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply'. Over Monday and Tuesday, another bench of the court comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Arvind Kumar heard an anticipatory bail plea by Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya. Malviya had been booked in May for hurting religious sentiments. His offence? Posting on social media a cartoon he had made in 2021 depicting a satirical situation featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a man dressed in what may appear to some as the uniform of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Earlier this month, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had not only rejected his application for anticipatory bail but also called for his arrest. The bench of Dhulia and Kumar granted Malviya interim protection from arrest. However, it called his cartoons 'inflammatory', 'immature' and 'offensive'. Describing this as a widespread problem, Dhulia said on Tuesday that the court would 'have to do something on this', adding that 'there should be a test', presumably about what may be permitted to be posted online. That same day, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions that it was hearing together. Two of the petitions were by YouTubers Ranveer Allahbadia and Ashish Chanchlani to club the FIRs filed against them in parts of the country and one by charitable organisation SMA Cure Foundation against comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar for making jokes about persons with disabilities. During the hearing, Kant told the attorney general that any guidelines framed by the government to regulate online content must 'balance' freedoms and duties. To be clear, under India's constitutional framework, fundamental duties are not grounds to restrict the freedom of speech and expression – or any other fundamental right. In February, while hearing Allahbadia's petition, Kant had first nudged the government to regulate obscene content on YouTube and said that the court 'would like to do something' and not 'leave this vacuum'. Each of these cases illustrates judicial overreach. In none of these cases had the parties sought regulations on online speech. Ideally, the court would have restricted itself to the actual subject of the petitions and adjudicated on them. Instead, it went into the tone and tenor of specific items of online content – not whether these constituted criminal offences – and has called for an online censorship regime. This trend does not bode well for free speech in India. It has revived the Union government's efforts to push for a sweeping Broadcasting Bill. Last year, it had mooted such a bill ahead of the Lok Sabha elections but withdrew it in August amid allegations by news associations and civil society organisations that it impinged on free speech online. It also leads to the right to free speech being circumscribed by public outrage and the sensibilities of judges. The Supreme Court, and all other courts, would do well to remember the judgement delivered in March by a bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Quashing an FIR registered against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for an Instagram post, the judgement, written by Oka, said: 'Sometimes, we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a).' Here is a summary of the week's top stories. Opposition leader's son held. The Enforcement Directorate arrested Chaitanya Baghel, the son of Chhattisgarh's former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in a liquor scam case. The action came after the central agency conducted searches at their home in Durg district. The agency has alleged that a syndicate of officials, politicians and others ensured a state-run firm bought liquor only from select distributors who paid a commission. This action, the authorities alleged, resulted in over Rs 2,000 crore being diverted from the state exchequer between 2019 and 2022. Chaitanya Baghel received the proceeds of crime generated from the bootlegging of alcohol, claimed the Enforcement Directorate. Bhupesh Baghel claimed on Friday that the agency's action was an attempt to stop him from asking questions in the Assembly about the trees being allegedly felled by the Adani Group. Respite for Indian nurse. Yemeni authorities agreed to postpone the execution of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, which had been scheduled for Wednesday. No new date has been announced. This came a day after the Union government told the Indian Supreme Court that it could not do much more to prevent the action. Hailing from Kerala's Palakkad, Priya was imprisoned in Yemen for the alleged murder of Yemeni citizen Talal Abdo Mehdi in July 2017. In 2020, Priya had been sentenced to death by a trial court in the Yemeni capital Sanaa. On December 30, news reports claimed that Rashad al-Alimi, the chairperson of Yemen's Presidential Leadership Council, had approved the sentence. Assam eviction drive turns violent. A 19-year-old was killed and several injured after the Assam Police opened fire at protesters amid clashes at the site of an eviction drive in the Betbari area of Goalpara district. At least two police personnel were among the injured. Ten persons were arrested in connection with the violence. Authorities had cleared 140 hectares of land in the Paikan Reserve Forest on Saturday, displacing 1,080 families, most of whom were Muslims of Bengali origin. Since then, the displaced families have been living in tents and tarpaulin huts, which officials had asked them to dismantle. The clashes broke out on Thursday after authorities dug up the road that provided connectivity to the settlement. The state blames the police. Karnataka Police officers acted like 'servants' of the Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bengaluru, the state government told the High Court hearing the case about the stampede outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium. Eleven persons were killed during the stampede on June 4. The state government also told the court that police officers had started making arrangements for celebrations after the team's victory in the league without ascertaining who had permitted the event. Further, the government claimed that the cricket team had submitted an application proposing a celebration even before the final match. The government defended the suspension of Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash, accusing him of failing to do his duty and causing 'public embarrassment'.
