States Sue Over Unauthorized Immigrants' Access to Federal Programs
The suit, led by New York's attorney general, Letitia James, comes after several federal agencies announced earlier this month that they would no longer allow unauthorized immigrants to benefit from more than a dozen health and education programs, including Head Start, an early education program for low-income children. Trump administration officials said the changes would ensure that federal benefits were reserved for American citizens.
The states said the changes had already caused significant disruption and that providers could struggle to verify the citizenship status of all recipients. They also said the administration's actions could result in the 'collapse of some of the nation's most vital public programs' and cause some citizens to be denied benefits if they lack government-issued identification.
'These programs work because they are open, accessible and grounded in compassion,' Ms. James said in a statement. 'Now, the federal government is pulling that foundation out from under us overnight, jeopardizing cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care and so much more.'
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Trump administration moved this month to expand the number of programs that qualify as federal public benefits, effectively limiting unauthorized immigrants' access to those programs.
The Department of Health and Human Services said it would no longer allow undocumented immigrants to benefit from community behavioral health clinics or programs that provide support for mental health and substance abuse. The Education Department said it would end subsidies for undocumented immigrants enrolled in career, technical and adult education programs. And the Labor Department said it would restrict unauthorized immigrants from receiving work force development grants.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
To Win Or Not To Win The AI Race. The Question To End All Questions
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during the ... More "Winning the AI Race" summit hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) When President Donald Trump announced Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan yesterday, he said something we should all remember: 'America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.' These are important words to remember because it may be the last time, Trump and his Big Tech partners in Silicon Valley acknowledge that AI wasn't always a question of winning or losing a race. To Win Or Not To Win Is Not The Only Question Once AI was a philosophical question – one that religious and spiritual thinkers from ancient cultures asked to better understand the laws of nature. Later it became a scientific question – one that English mathematicians and computer scientitsts asked to transcend the laws of nature. And lately, it has become everyone's question – one that ethicists, policy makers, journalists, educators, you, and I ask to protect the nature in and around us that AI threatens to replace. But – Trump claims – AI is no longer a question. It's a race. A race started by America that America is going to win. Why? Because, as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, puts it, 'winning the AI race is non-negotiable.' And once something is non-negotiable, all questions about it ends. So what are the questions America's AI Action Plan is designed to end? And why is it important that we keep asking them? The AI Race Ends Questions About Regulations The plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security. One key policy is enabling innovation and adoption by 'removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' In yesterday's summit Trump commented on this initiative, saying the AI industry is 'a beautiful baby that's born.' 'We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics, we can't stop it with foolish rules,' Trump said. Talking about AI development as something that cannot be stopped is one thing. Comparing the tech industry with a baby whose growth and well-being we are responsible for is another. And maybe that's where our questions should start: Where our understanding of nature meets our understanding of technology. Is it the same to be 'born to think' and to be 'built to think'? Do babies and AI technologies follow the same laws of nature? Do they have the same constraints? And can the questions asked by philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists in the past guide us in navigating the need for restrictions and regulations in the future? At the AI Action Plan summit, President Trump said the tech industry is 'a beautiful baby" that we ... More have to grow and let thrive. (Photo by Joe Mahoney) The AI Race Ends Questions About Existential Risks According to the White House's website, 'winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people.' But it doesn't say what this golden age of human flourishing should look like. In fact, the Trump administration's understanding of AI seems to built on the idea that technology can and should be neutral. No human ideas and ideals. Just pure innovation. Or, as it says in the plan's 'upholding free speech in frontier models' section: Federal procurement guidelines must be updated to 'ensure that the government only contracts with frontier language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias.' But this idea that technology can and should be neutral can and should be questioned. For decades the developers of first the internet and then social media have promised us free speech and systems that are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias. And for decades, we have seen an increase in mental health problems caused by misinformation and polarization. So, maybe that's the questions we must ask: How does it impact humans to think and talk about technology as something that doesn't impact humans? Is it possible to let the tech industry grow and thrive and at the same time take responsibility for human growth and well-being? Or will a country that prioritizes to be front runners in building technological systems eventually lose sight of what it takes to build human systems, e.g. in terms of education, health, and ultimately democracy? The AI Race Ends Questions About Global Collaboration 'Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself,' Trump said at the AI Action Plan event. To prepare for this future, the government will partner with US tech companies to make 'full stack AI export packages' — AI models, hardware and software — available to American ally countries. As reported by CNN, this partnership aims at making US technology the global standard, something Silicon Valley leaders have called for to ensure the United States remains an AI leader. But if AI really is this 'groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself', other countries are not looking to the US for a 'full stack AI export package'. And they are certainly not looking to Silicon Valley for global leadership and standards. Dealing with a groundbreaking technology that will determine the future of civilization itself calls for everyone to work together. And that calls for all of us to ask: Should staying ahead of China be the top priority for the American administration right now? Or does AI call for an intergovernmental organization like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that promotes the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology? Established in 1957, IAEA was not influenced by Big Tech. The Agency's genesis was President Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1953. Is that what the world needs from the president of the United States? Not a declaration that America is going to win a race it started itself. And not a full stack AI export package. But an 'AI for Peace' address that crystallizes the hope that the groundbreaking development of AI 'may lead to the unifying of the entire divided world' (Eisenhower's words about the splitting of the atom)? To win or not to win the AI race is not the only question. There are many questions and none of them should be answered by one president of one country. Least of all in a plan designed to be non-negotiable.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges deny releasing Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury transcripts from cases in New York and Florida
Federal judges in New York and Florida on Wednesday rejected requests to unseal grand jury transcripts related to investigations into Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche asked judges in Florida and New York to release transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying, 'Transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' However, appeals from both the Trump administration and Maxwell were denied Wednesday by two separate judges. The evidence the Trump administration hoped to unseal, however, likely wouldn't reveal much, according to experts, who say prosecutors try to provide just enough to get charges — not introduce an entire investigation. U.S. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg in West Palm Beach wrote in her ruling that the request to release the documents related to an investigation into Epstein from 2005 to 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public. Grand jury proceedings are typically done in secret and kept from public view. Meanwhile, New York federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer wrote in a filing that Maxwell, who requested access to grand jury transcripts in her case, 'has not shown, or attempted to show, that the grand jury materials in her case are apt to reveal any deficiency in the proceedings leading to her indictment.' Engelmayer wrote there was 'no compelling necessity' for Maxwell to review her grand jury transcripts, which the Trump Administration has also requested to unseal. 'The Court will review these transcripts expeditiously. In the event the Court determines it would benefit from Maxwell's commentary as to discrete aspect of these transcripts, the Court stands ready to make that excerpt, or a synopsis thereof, available to her counsel to facilitate counsel's briefing,' Engelmayer wrote. Engelmayer continued: 'But there is no justification for Maxwell to obtain the extraordinary relief of plenary access to the grand jury transcripts in her case.' Both rejections come about a week after the Justice Department asked the judges to release the records, likely in a move to appease the MAGA base of President Donald Trump, many of whom believe the government has not been transparent with their investigation into Epstein. While Trump ran on the promise that more information would be released about Epstein and his associates, he has since reversed course, with Attorney General Pam Bondi releasing a joint memo with the FBI indicating there would be no more information shared about the financier's conviction. In 2008, Epstein made a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that would let him avoid more serious federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. Epstein was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges. He later died by suicide in Manhattan federal court while awaiting trial. Maxwell was later convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After news of the rejection was made public Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters she would 'let the president speak to whether he wants to see an appeal.' With reporting from the Associated Press. Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Onward! A Personal Tribute To Ed Feulner (1941-2025)
Ed Feulner and three of his main intellectual inspirations: G.K. Chesterton, Russell Kirk, and F. A. ... More Hayek painting by Deborah Melvin Beisner. Photo of a copy of the painting in the author's possession Dr. Edwin J. Feulner Jr. was such a significant policy player for over 50 years that, although numerous leaders have already shared memories of how he influenced their lives, there is ample room for further tributes. I first heard of Ed, as he liked to be called, as an immigrant from Argentina in the late 70s. For me Ed was an immense inspiration and later an extremely generous mentor and advisor. I came to the United States in 1978 to study under Dr. Hans F. Sennholz at Grove City College. Sennholz had been a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and, though of course primarily a teacher, was very active as a speaker in conservative free-market circles. He introduced me to the work of Feulner at the Heritage Foundation. I finally met Feulner in September 1980, when I was invited to the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) meeting held at the Hoover Institution. Feulner became a key member of the MPS, occupying several leadership positions. My acquaintance with Ed deepened starting in 1985 when I joined Antony Fisher, the founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and later founder of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Fisher attempted to hire Feulner to lead the International Center for Economic Policy Studies (ICEPS, today the Manhattan Institute). In 1978, Fisher had been discussing the creation of a New York-based think tank with his friend William J. "Bill" Casey, then a New York lawyer. Just as Feulner was about to start his new job, the recently established Heritage Foundation made him a much better offer, and the rest is history. Although disappointed at not being able to hire him, Fisher remained friends with Feulner and invited him to speak at Atlas events. As in its early days Atlas was located in San Francisco, far from Heritage, at first, I mostly saw Feulner at the meetings of the Mont Pelerin Society. At one of those meetings, in Guatemala, I as a member of the program committee was able to invite Fr. Robert Sirico to speak. Sir John Templeton, who worked closely with Antony Fisher, attended the meeting as well. Following conversations during the meeting, Fr. Sirico decided to establish the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and both Feulner and I were asked to be on Acton's founding board. At the end of our first Acton board retreat, I drove to the airport together with Ed. When I am with influential people, I ask the same questions: Whom do you always read? Who is doing great work, and should we support them more? And: What is the biggest problem we face today in our battle for freedom? I recall his answer to the latter vividly. It was in the mid 90's and Ed said: 'The young people who are joining the movement have a very shallow and superficial understanding of the principles of the free society. They join our think tanks, but they never went through the process of studying all the main works, the Founding Fathers, the great economists, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk.' Feulner invested his time in organizations such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), where he served as a long-standing trustee and chairman. ISI aims to fill the void Feulner spoke of by creating fellowships and academic programs for talented young people. In addition to his role as a think tank leader, Ed Feulner also played a significant role in grant-giving foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which supports dozens of policy think tanks. He also served as an inspiration for other foundations. A little-known fact is that Sir John Templeton, in starting his organization, included Feulner on its charter as one of the authors who should serve as a guide for its grants in the realm of free enterprise. The other authors who preceded him are Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, William E. Simon, and Antony Fisher. Ideas never die, and Ed Feulner's views and legacy will continue to inspire many of us. In addition to his leadership at think tanks and philanthropic organizations, Dr. Feulner played a role in various political campaigns. He worked alongside Jack Kemp when he was vice presidential candidate with Bob Dole. He also joined the campaign for Trump's 2016 presidential run. In 2016, at a private meeting with freedom fighters from around the world, Ed told us: 'Trump put one condition, that if we disagree with a policy, like I did on tariffs, we keep our disagreement private.' Dr. Ed Feulner being recognized for his service to the Mont Pelerin Society during the Hong Kong ... More general meeting in 2014. Dr. Allan H. Meltzer (1928-2017), then president of the Society, at his side When in 2014 the Mont Pelerin Society asked me to help choose a gift for Ed Feulner, I had a unique opportunity to learn about what inspired him. Without revealing my intention, I asked him during a private meeting at his office which intellectuals had had the greatest impact on his life. He was quick to answer G.K. Chesterton, Russell Kirk, and F.A. Hayek. An artist who knew him well, Debby Beisner, captured his response in a beautiful painting. Books will be written about Ed Feulner and his legacy. For now, one of his favorite words suffices to remember his spirit: Onward!
