In a significant legal move, attorneys general from more than 20 states and the District of Columbia have taken an assertive stand against the Trump administration with a federal lawsuit filed in Boston. This lawsuit addresses the administration’s decision to cut billions in funding, impacting critical areas like crime prevention, food security, and scientific research, which the states argue is based on an obscure clause in federal regulations.
The plaintiffs are urging the court to put a stop to the Trump administration’s practice of using this clause to dismiss grants that don’t conform to its policy goals. The case argues that since January, the administration has unfairly invoked this regulation to dismantle ongoing programs and revoke thousands of grants previously awarded.
The basis of the lawsuit is the claim that the greater power to terminate grants, allegedly granted by the clause, was never intended by the Office of Management and Budget for widespread use based on shifting agency priorities. The suit describes this ongoing funding reduction as a “slash-and-burn campaign” directed at federal grants.
This legal action highlights the impact of funding terminations on various states, effectively depriving them of essential federal aid for vital programs, as the lawsuit contends. Despite this challenge, the Trump administration has not yet provided an official comment, leaving unanswered questions about their stance on the lawsuit.
Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha indicated that this lawsuit is part of a series of legal efforts by a coalition of Democratic states opposing federal funding cuts. Their attempts have largely been successful in temporarily halting these cuts in prior cases.
The ongoing effort represents what may be one of the broadest challenges to the Trump administration’s funding decisions. Discussing the lawsuit, Neronha emphasized the president’s extensive actions to redirect federal funding away from the states, highlighting the manner in which the administration attempts to justify such actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong criticized the funding cuts as indiscriminate and a violation of law. He highlighted the absence of legal precedence allowing the President to unilaterally retract funding based on personal bias or arbitrary reasoning.
In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell pointed to specific examples where federal funding was withdrawn. Among them was a terminated $11 million agreement with a state department that engaged farmers with food distribution centers and a $1 million environmental grant aimed at lessening asthma triggers in low-income areas.
The lawsuit underscores the controversial clause used by federal agencies to justify funding cuts. It purports that this five-word clause permits agencies unchecked authority to cease funding whenever program goals or agency priorities change, despite Congressional appropriations.