Latest news with #HarrisonFields
The Hill
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over funding cuts
A group of 21 Democratic-led states filed a Tuesday lawsuit against the Trump administration for arbitrarily cutting grants allegedly misaligned with an agency's goals. Plaintiffs, which include New York, Illinois and California, said federal agencies have taken on a nationwide 'slash-and-burn campaign' to unlawfully revoke previously awarded funds through a subclause in federal regulations. States' attorneys general allege a clause permitting federal agencies to terminate grants 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' is being misused by the Trump administration. The states said congressionally mandated funds cannot be 'stripped away' to punish jurisdictions that enforce policies disliked by the current administration. States with sanctuary cities, research projects related to environmental protection standards and other measures have lost federal dollars in recent months. 'With the stroke of a pen, federal agencies have deprived States of critical funding they rely on to combat violent crime and protect public safety, equip law enforcement, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct life-saving medical and scientific research, address food insecurity experienced by students in school, ensure access to unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and much more,' plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit. 'Federal agencies have done all of this without any advance notice, without any explanation to the State recipients, and in direct contravention of the will of Congress,' they added. 'The State recipients' sole offense has been that they used the grant funding precisely how they had promised in the grant applications—and as they were instructed by the agencies at the time of the grant award.' 'Leftist AGs and governors who would rather spend their days drafting toothless letters in an attempt to 'stick it to Trump' continue to miss the mark while failing to address real issues impacting their states,' White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told The Hill. 'Every one of these elected officials should focus on serving their constituents, not their party bosses, and work with the President and this administration to enact the agenda the American people overwhelmingly supported.' The lawsuit follows a federal judge's Thursday ruling rejecting the Department of Transportation's attempts to tie state funding to immigration enforcement operations.
CBS News
16-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
American Bar Association sues Trump administration over law firm crackdown
The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration Monday, arguing President Trump's wide-ranging push to punish law firms is unconstitutional. It joined several targeted firms that have filed suit against the government. The lawsuit takes aim at a series of controversial orders signed by Mr. Trump that direct the government to cut off security clearances, contracts and even federal building access for some of the nation's largest law firms. The orders often fault the firms for taking on certain pro bono clients, associating with Mr. Trump's legal foes or engaging in diversity, equity and inclusion practices that the administration claims are discriminatory. The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., argues Mr. Trump has "used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like," in violation of the First Amendment. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the lawsuit "clearly frivolous." "The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue," Fields wrote in a statement to CBS News. The bar association's lawsuit cites the deals struck by several law firms, which promised hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work to causes favored by the administration in order to avoid future targeting by the government. It also argues the Trump administration's gambit has led to a "chilling effect," intimidating some law firms into not taking pro bono cases that run counter to the Trump administration's agenda — especially in immigration-related matters. The American Bar Association said it has been a victim of this chilling effect. The organization, which counts hundreds of thousands of attorneys as members, wrote in the suit that it has had trouble finding law firms willing to represent it in pro bono cases. The group has tangled with the Trump administration in the past: The Justice Department has said it will not pay for its staff to attend ABA events and has taken aim at the ABA's diversity policies. The group sued the government earlier this year for cutting off some training grants, arguing it was being punished for protected speech, leading a judge to block the policy. The ABA alleged in Monday's suit that in a lawsuit over grant cutoffs, it "was unable to obtain pro bono representation by any of the firms it contacted." The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare that Mr. Trump's orders are unconstitutional and enjoin the administration from taking similar actions. "Whoever wins the next election will be free to squelch dissent based on policy disagreements," the suit reads. "There is no limiting principle: The next Administration might threaten adverse Executive Branch actions against any lawyer or law firm that dares to represent an oil company, or a gun manufacturer, or the Federalist Society or Fox News." Multiple law firms that were targeted by the Trump administration have sued over the orders, resulting in injunctions from federal judges that sometimes lambasted the administration. In one ruling that blocked the government from targeting Perkins Coie, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Mr. Trump's order sent the message that "lawyers must stick to the party line, or else." Several other firms have cut deals with the administration, promising to carry out mutually agreed-upon pro bono work. These deals are controversial within the legal community — and within the firms themselves — with opponents arguing the firms are capitulating to the government and may not be trustworthy. Supporters of the deals say the firms were put into an impossible position and risked losing scores of clients and attorneys if they chose to take on the government.
Fox News
04-06-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Harrison Fields: Look At This Bill As 'One Big, Beautiful Step' In The Right Direction
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields joins Fox Across America With guest host Paul Gleiser to share his reaction to Tesla CEO Elon Musk's blunt criticism of President Trump's 'one, big beautiful bill', which was passed by the GOP-controlled House last month. 'The president, this administration are immensely grateful to Elon Musk. And his contributions to this administration as an SGE and someone who played a critical role in bringing forth DOGE to the federal government, which has already yielded about $175 billion in savings. And you all have been covering it. We just sent $9.8 billion of recessions to Capitol Hill, which are going to be codifying some of these cuts. So one, we want to thank Elon Musk. Two, we want to acknowledge a simple truth, Elon Musk is a CEO of many companies, including Tesla. He is acting as a businessman and he is speaking in his personal capacity about what will impact his companies. And he is focused on being committed as a CEO. But I'll tell you this, President Trump is the CEO of America. And he owes it to the American people to get this bill passed, because this is exactly what he said he was going to do. And that's our focus here.' To hear their full conversation, check out the podcast!
Washington Post
04-06-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Citigroup drops gun-seller restrictions adopted after Parkland shooting
Citigroup is ending a seven-year-old policy that blocked its banking services for retailers that sold firearms to buyers under age 21 and those who did not pass a background check, reversing a high-profile decision made in the weeks after the 2018 Parkland school shooting. Citi, one of the largest banks in the country, was lauded by gun safety advocates in March 2018 when it announced its policy, which included banning retailers that sold high-capacity magazines or bump stocks, like the one used by the Parkland shooter. Other Wall Street banks soon followed suit. The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, left 17 students and staff members dead. On Tuesday, Citi reversed course, saying it would no longer have a specific firearms policy. The White House praised the change, which comes as the Trump administration has increasingly pressured banks to drop restrictions it views as unfriendly to conservative causes. 'It's encouraging to see companies like Citi embrace this by ending their discriminatory policies against millions of law-abiding gun owners in America,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email. 'Any attempt to abridge Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms through misguided and targeted politicization is irresponsible, and the Trump Administration is committed to ending these practices once and for all.' Trump regularly suggested on the campaign trail that major banks were hostile to conservatives. While campaigning in 2024, he said he would implement regulations to 'stop banks and regulators from trying to de-bank you.' At the World Economic Forum in January, Trump publicly criticized Bank of America's chief executive, claiming without evidence that the company and others discriminate against conservatives. On Tuesday, Ed Skyler, head of enterprise services and public affairs at Citi, said in a blog post that the company was aware of concerns about 'fair access' to banking services and was making the changes to comply with executive orders as well as new regulations and federal laws related to that issue. The 2018 policy, Skyler wrote, was meant to encourage retailers to adopt best practices around firearms sales as 'prudent risk management' and didn't address the manufacturing of firearms. 'Many retailers have been following these best practices, and we hope communities and lawmakers will continue to seek out ways to prevent the tragic consequences of gun violence,' Skyler wrote. Citigroup adopted the policy in 2018 amid public clamor for businesses to act against gun violence in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Dick's Sporting Goods, Walmart, Kroger and other retailers made changes to their firearms sales policies or dropped gun-related discounts and partnership programs. 'As a society, we all know that something needs to change. And as a company, we feel we must do our part,' Skyler wrote in a 2018 statement announcing the policy. Gun violence prevention advocates said Citi was capitulating to Trump with the policy reversal instead of protecting children. 'Seven years ago, after 17 of my peers and teachers were murdered, Citi found the courage to say 'no more' — no more financing gun sales to teenagers,' Jackie Corin, a Parkland survivor and executive director of the student-led gun-control group March for Our Lives, said in a statement. 'Today, they're saying our lives matter less than their politics.' The White House did not respond to questions about whether the policy change weakened safety measures around gun sales.
Reuters
03-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Trump seeks to reshape judiciary as first nominees face Senate
June 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's first batch of judicial nominees since returning to the White House is set to go before a U.S. Senate panel as the Republican looks to further reshape a judiciary whose members have stymied parts of his agenda. Five of the 11 judicial nominees Trump has announced so far are slated to appear on Wednesday before the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which will weigh whether to recommend them for the full Senate's consideration. Those nominees all have conservative bona fides that their supporters say will help Trump shift the ideological balance of the judiciary further to the right after making 234 appointments in his first term, which was a near-record for a president's first four years in office. Trump's first-term appointees included three members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which since gaining a 6-3 conservative majority has curtailed abortion rights, rejected affirmative action policies on university campuses and limited the power of administrative agencies. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that Trump was committed to "restoring integrity to the judicial system, which begins with appointing America First judges, not unelected politicians in robes." Among Wednesday's nominees is Whitney Hermandorfer, who as a lawyer serving under Tennessee's Republican attorney general has defended the state's abortion ban and challenged federal protections for transgender youth. Hermandorfer, who is nominated to a seat on the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will appear before the Senate panel with four nominees to fill trial court vacancies in Missouri. Those include Joshua Divine, Missouri's solicitor general, who challenged Democratic former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness efforts and has defended abortion and transgender healthcare restrictions. The hearing comes days after Trump broke with conservative legal activist Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, who advised Trump on judicial appointments in his first term. 'I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,' Trump wrote. 'This is something that cannot be forgotten!" Leo in response said he was grateful Trump transformed the courts. He said the judiciary "is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy." Trump's attack on Leo came a day after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade that included a Trump-appointed judge blocked most of his tariffs. It is one of several rulings White House officials describe as part of a "judicial coup" by judges who have blocked his policies. Mike Davis, whose conservative Article III Project backs Trump's judicial nominees, said that in his second term Trump "doesn't need to appease the D.C. establishment with weak and timid judges." "He is picking bold and fearless judges, like Emil Bove, who will follow the Constitution instead of seeking establishment favor." Bove, a Justice Department official who previously served as Trump's defense lawyer in the New York criminal trial over hush money paid to a porn star, was nominated last week to join the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination drew criticism from Democrats and Ed Whelan, a conservative legal commentator who in a piece in the National Review called Bove's nomination "disturbing." "Clearly you have some folks agitating for MAGA-type nominees, and the White House will be open to those folks so long as they also have good legal qualifications," Whelan said in an interview. But he said most of Trump's nominees, as well as candidates in the pipeline, have fit within the rubric of what Trump would have sought in his first term. "It's going to be very hard for Trump to pick people other than people with traditional conservative qualifications," Whelan said.
