New York AG Letitia James Wins Lawsuit Over Trump's Medical Funding Cuts, Which Judge Called ‘Government Racial Discrimination'
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced Monday that she has, once again, landed a victory in the courtroom against the Trump administration.
In early April, James announced via press release that she had 'joined a coalition of 15 other attorneys general in suing the administration after it terminated millions of dollars in grant funding for previously approved research projects, including projects focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), LGBTQ+ health, and vaccine hesitancy.'
According to Monday's news release, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge William Young ruled that the administration's cuts to NIH funding were illegal, and he ordered the restoration of more than $4.5 million in grants for New York-based health projects.
Young also said plainly that what the MAGA-fied White House tried to do was racist AF.
From The Harvard Crimson:
All the canceled projects centered around themes of gender and sexuality, Covid-19 and vaccines for the disease, or health disparities. Many included key words in their abstracts, like 'race,' 'barrier,' 'inequity,' and 'minority,' that were reportedly used to target projects for cuts.
Young, a 1985 Reagan appointee, said at the hearing that he has 'never seen government racial discrimination like this' in his 40-year career, calling the funding cuts 'arbitrary and capricious, and unlawful' in his ruling.
'Have we no shame?' he said at the end of Monday's hearing.
The ruling voided 11 memoranda and directives issued from the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services that specifically cut grants based on politically-motivated language.
Just imagine how Republicans would feel if a Democratic administration decided which federal grant programs to cut by nixing any program associated with the words 'MAGA,' 'illegals,' 'deport,' 'Confederate,' and 'no more woke.' More than likely, they would have immediately started slinging around words like 'tyranny,' 'oppression,' and certainly 'unconstitutional,' but, as usual, these people really only care about the Constitution when it's convenient for them to do so.
Anyway, let's go back to how much Trump must hate to see James coming into a courtroom at this point.
James had already shut down the Trump Foundation after bringing a case against him in 2019, accusing his charity of misuse of donations. Then, last year, she beat the Trump empire again after bringing a case that resulted in the president being ordered to $454 million in penalties linked to fraud allegations.
And the New York AG isn't done yet.
In April, James joined attorney generals from 19 states in filing a lawsuit against the White House, seeking to block its plans to withhold billions in federal funding over DEI efforts in K-12 schools. The same month, she joined 12 other states in filing a suit challenging the legality of Trump's disastrous tariff agenda, arguing it unlawfully undermines Congress.
This is why the MAGA world hates James and other prominent Black women in law and politics so much. It's just too bad Trump supporters won't direct that energy to really interrogating why the administration of the guy they believe is such a great commander in chief is facing multiple lawsuits filed by damn near half the country.
Maybe he's just bad at his job.
SEE ALSO:
NY AG Letitia James Considers Probe Into Trump's Tariff Flip-Flop
NY AG Letitia James Calls Mortgage Fraud Claims 'Baseless'
SEE ALSO
New York AG Letitia James Wins Lawsuit Over Trump's Medical Funding Cuts, Which Judge Called 'Government Racial Discrimination' was originally published on newsone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CBS News names '60 Minutes' veteran Tanya Simon as broadcast's new top producer
CBS News said Thursday it has selected Tanya Simon as the top producer at '60 Minutes,' elevating a respected insider in a closely-watched appointment given the turmoil that enveloped the newsmagazine with the settlement of President Donald Trump's lawsuit. Simon, daughter of the late '60 Minutes' correspondent Bob Simon, becomes only the fourth executive producer of the influential newsmagazine since it was invented by Don Hewitt in the late 1960s. She's been executive editor of the broadcast, and running it on an interim basis since her predecessor Bill Owens quit in April, saying he questioned whether he'd be allowed to lead the program as he saw fit. Owens had opposed settling Trump's lawsuit over the editing of last fall's interview with Kamala Harris. CBS News parent company Paramount Global agreed earlier this month to pay Trump $16 million to end their dispute. Simon has worked at '60 Minutes' for 25 years, and was strongly supported by many at the famously insular broadcast to take over for Owens. 'Tanya Simon understands what makes '60 Minutes' tick,' said Tom Cibrowski, president and executive editor of CBS News. 'She is an innovative leader, an exceptional producer, and someone who knows how to inspire people.' In May, seven '60 Minutes' correspondents signed a letter to Paramount Global management urging that Simon be appointed. 'As much as we will miss Bill Owens, we believe — no, we know — that his long-term successor must come from within,' the correspondents wrote. Crucially, Simon's appointment came before the Trump administration's approval of Paramount Global's proposed merger with Skydance Media, a takeover that is expected to result in changes at CBS News. ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come
After commending Columbia University for "agreeing to do what is right," President Trump indicates his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping any time soon. WASHINGTON – After announcing a $220 million deal with Columbia University to restore its federal funding, President Donald Trump indicated his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping anytime soon. Not long after the settlement was reached, he wrote on his social media platform that similar agreements with "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming." Columbia, a selective and wealthy Ivy League school in New York City, on July 23 agreed to pay more than $220 million in fines over several years to the government for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws. Last year, the campus became the epicenter of student protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. At the time, the tense environment drew nationwide concern over a spike in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents. The heightened scrutiny also focused the ire of many conservative politicians, who have long accused higher education more broadly of being too left-leaning. Read more: How Columbia University became the epicenter of disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war Trump's criticisms of the campus, however, have extended far beyond its compliance with antidiscrimination protections. In March, he demanded that the school overhaul its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, said the university would appoint an independent monitor to oversee the campus in conjunction with federal officials, and to ensure administrators are abiding by the terms of the deal. The 22-page agreement contains sweeping concessions from the college, including handing over admissions data to the independent monitor, new faculty appointments, conducting reviews of some academic departments and more greatly scrutinizing foreign student enrollment. In return, the Trump administration promised to reroute more than $400 million in paused federal funding, largely for research, back to the college. In an interview on CNN the morning after the arrangement was announced, Shipman indicated billions more dollars were at stake. "It's not just money for Columbia," she said. "This is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity." The unprecedented agreement came weeks after the administration struck a separate accord with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, another member of the Ivy League, to unfreeze $175 million in return for apologizing to swimmers who competed against a transgender athlete years ago. "I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right," Trump wrote. "I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!" Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
