More than 20 U.S. attorneys-general sue Trump administration over funding cuts
The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees.
'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the [Office of Management and Budget] intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.'
Job cuts at U.S. FDA raise red flags over safety of food imports to Canada
Opinion: The Trump administration's cuts to the U.S. State Department are a threat to Canada
The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants.
'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added.
Rhode Island Attorney-General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts.
This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts.
'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys-general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.''
Connecticut Attorney-General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal.
'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement.
'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.'
In Massachusetts, Attorney-General Andrea Campbell said the U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a US$11-million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated a US$1-million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities.
'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement.
The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.'
'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause – 'no longer effectuates ... agency priorities' – provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
34 minutes ago
- CTV News
Markets' 90-day tariff pause rollercoaster nears an uncertain end
President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File) GDANSK/LONDON — The deadline U.S. President Donald Trump set for major trading partners to strike deals with Washington or face hefty tariffs expires next week, bringing to a close 90 days of volatility but leaving global investors in the dark over what will happen next. Trump's propensity to issue a threat, or impose a new tariff, only to reverse course shortly afterwards has led to turmoil over the past three months. Investors, however, have now become somewhat inured to this sort of policymaking on the fly. And, as a result, there is little evidence at this point that many are preparing for fireworks on July 9. Instead, most expect some kind of delay, pause or compromise. What that will look like, however, is anyone's guess. Here is a snapshot of where major markets are now, relative to where they were when Trump dropped his initial tariffs bombshell on April 2: Taking stock of stocks Global stock markets have staged a strong recovery following the intense volatility triggered by Trump's tariff announcement. The MSCI World index .MIWD00000PUS, which fell 10 per cent between April 2 and April 9, the day Trump paused the tariffs, has hit successive record highs and gained over 11 per cent since the original 'Liberation Day' announcement. Global equities got another boost in May, when the U.S. and China reached a temporary truce, pausing many tariffs for another 90 days. Geopolitical tensions, including Israel's recent strikes on Iran and Washington's subsequent bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, briefly reined in sentiment but have not derailed the broader rally. The S&P 500 .SPX, which had lagged other major equity markets earlier in the year, has closed those gaps, gaining over 10 per cent since April 2, and is neck and neck with the MSCI all-country index, which excludes the United States .MIWU00000PUS. There's an important caveat, however. The S&P has only hit record highs in dollar terms. The weakness in the U.S. currency has eroded the returns for overseas investors. In euro or Swiss franc terms, for example, the index is still about 10 per cent below February's record high, while in pounds, it's seven per cent below the sterling-denominated peak. Dollar decline The U.S. dollar, widely regarded as the world's most powerful and stable currency, has suffered a knock to its reputation from Trump's tariffs and the subsequent 90-day pause. The dollar index, which reflects the U.S. currency's performance against a basket of six others including the euro and the Japanese yen, suffered its worst first half of the year since 1973, declining by approximately 11 per cent. It has fallen by 6.6 per cent since April 2 alone. Against the currencies of some of the United States' biggest trading partners, the decline has been even more marked. It has lost some eight per cent against the euro and the Mexican peso since then and five per cent against the Canadian dollar. Vincent Mortier, the CIO of Europe's largest asset manager Amundi, said the euro has plenty more room to run, especially as U.S. debt worries are also driving the dollar down. 'I won't be surprised if by the end of next year we start to revisit the US$1.30 level,' he said, highlighting that at its 2008 peak, the euro got as high as $1.60. For exporters, certainty is the prize European shares have more than recovered losses suffered since Trump's 'Liberation Day.' But strength in the euro and anxiety over tariffs have kept them below March's record highs. Large exporting sectors such as pharma and autos, which make up around one-third of EU exports to the United States, have rebounded too, but have been more volatile. Brussels is reportedly open to a U.S. deal that would apply a universal 10% tariff on many of its exports, something several investors would view favorably should it be confirmed. Citi said markets risk being caught offside if tariffs are reimposed at 20 per cent or reach 50 per cent. 'Trump is truly unpredictable, but if it's really around 10 per cent, I think the markets will react very well,' said Carlo Franchini, head of institutional clients at Banca Ifigest. The impact of the trade talks extends beyond Europe, however, with automakers in Japan also being watched. Citi's base case is for a sustained 25 per cent tariff, while a surprise cut to 10 per cent could unlock a 50 per cent upside for Japanese auto stocks. All that glitters Gold has featured as the hedge of choice against an array of risks, from tariff-induced inflation, to geopolitical risk and a shift away from the U.S. dollar. The price has hit record after record, rising 26 per cent so far this year to around $3,330 an ounce. Gold has eclipsed bitcoin, which has gained about 14 per cent year to date, and even Nvidia, the maker of chips that power AI capabilities, whose shares went parabolic last year and have risen about 18 per cent this year. Since April 2, gold's ascent has gathered pace, fueled by purchases from central banks, fund managers and even individuals. A survey by UBS Asset Management this week showed 39 per cent of respondents said they planned to increase their gold holdings, compared with 15 per cent last year. The independence of the Federal Reserve - whose chair, Jerome Powell, Trump has berated repeatedly for not cutting interest rates fast enough - is one of the key concerns cited in the survey. (Reporting by Canan Sevgili and Alberto Chiumento in Gdansk, Danilo Masoni in Milan and Alun John, Marc Jones and Amanda Cooper in London; Editing by Joe Bavier)
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Trump eyes simple tariff rates over complex talks, says letters going out Friday
U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he boards Air Force One, Thursday, July 3, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump said Washington will start sending letters to countries on Friday specifying what tariff rates they will face on imports to the United States, a clear shift from earlier pledges to strike scores of individual deals. Acknowledging the complexity of negotiating with over 170 nations, Trump told reporters before departing for Iowa on Thursday that the letters will be sent to 10 countries at a time, laying out tariff rates such as 20 per cent to 30 per cent. 'We have more than 170 countries, and how many deals can you make?' Trump said. 'They're very much more complicated.' The Republican president said he expected 'a couple' more detailed agreements with other countries after Wednesday's announcement of a trade deal with Vietnam. However, he said he preferred to notify most other countries of a specific tariff rate, skipping detailed negotiations. Trump's comments underscored the challenges of completing trade agreements on everything from tariffs to non-tariff barriers such as bans on agricultural imports. Top Trump aides said in April they would work on 90 deals in 90 days, an ambitious goal that was met with skepticism from trade experts familiar with arduous and time-consuming trade deals of the past. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg Television that about 100 countries are likely to see a reciprocal tariff rate of 10 per cent and predicted a 'flurry' of trade deals announced before a July 9 deadline when tariffs could rise sharply. If 10 per cent tariffs were given to 100 countries, that would be fewer than originally envisioned by the Trump administration. Its original reciprocal tariff list showed 123 jurisdictions that would be given a 10 per cent tariff rate - mostly small countries, along with some territories such as Australia's uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands. Trump sent markets into a tailspin on April 2 with sweeping reciprocal tariff rates ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, although he temporarily reduced the tariff rate for most countries to 10 per cent to allow time for negotiations through July 9. Many countries with an initial 10 per cent duty rate have not had any negotiations with the Trump administration, with the exception of Britain, which reached a deal in May to keep a 10 per cent rate and won preferential treatment for some sectors including autos and aircraft engines. Major trading partners now involved in negotiations were hit with much higher tariff rates, including 20 per cent for the European Union, 26 per cent for India and 24 per cent for Japan. Other countries that have not engaged in trade talks with the Trump administration face even higher reciprocal tariffs, including 50 per cent for the tiny mountain kingdom of Lesotho, 47 per cent for Madagascar and 36 per cent for Thailand. Trump on Wednesday announced an agreement with Vietnam that he said cuts U.S. tariffs on many Vietnamese goods to 20 per cent from his previously threatened 46 per cent. Many U.S. products would be allowed to enter Vietnam duty free. By Andrea Shalal and David Lawder (Reporting by Andrea Shalal, David Lawder and Susan Heavey; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Ross Colvin, Sonali Paul and Daniel Wallis)
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — U.S. President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behaviour his first presidency despite some tough talk,' Kim said. China, North Korea and Russia all condemn U.S. strike Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. U.S. allies could see attack as positive sign for deterrence If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defence analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. China and North Korea present different challenges Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defences in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defence expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program. 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks,' he said. China and Taiwan will draw lessons China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity,' meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. 'The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise,' Thompson said. 'I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute. 'I think that is an exceedingly risky gambit, to put it mildly,' he said. ___ Tong-hyung Kim in Seoul, South Korea, and Didi Tang and Albee Zhang in Washington contributed to this report. David Rising, The Associated Press
