More Than 20 States Challenge Trump Administration’s Massive Funding Cuts
Attorneys general from over 20 states and Washington, DC have launched a federal lawsuit targeting billions of dollars in funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration. These cuts impact vital programs ranging from crime prevention and food security to scientific research.
Legal Battle Focuses on Obscure Regulatory Clause
The lawsuit, filed in Boston, demands that a judge restrict the administration’s use of a little-known clause allowing the cancellation of grants if they "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." Since January, this clause has been invoked to terminate thousands of grants and entire programs that had already been awarded to states and grantees.
Claims of an Unlawful “Slash-and-Burn” Approach
According to the plaintiffs, the administration’s reliance on this clause amounts to an unlawful, sweeping "slash-and-burn campaign" targeting essential federal funding. The lawsuit states, "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."
Attorneys General Speak Out Against Funding Cuts
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, representing the coalition of mainly Democratic states, emphasized that this suit is among several similar actions aimed at fighting back against the funding reductions. Many of these lawsuits have successfully delayed or reversed cuts on a temporary basis.
Neronha remarked, “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.” He added that most lawsuits stem from the administration’s improper attempts to dismantle basic programs vital to Americans.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong underscored the indiscriminate nature of these cuts, stating, "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.” He highlighted the administration’s defunding of police, schools, healthcare, and more since its earliest days, praising court victories that restored funding repeatedly.
Understanding the Contested Clause
The legal argument centers on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) endorsement of the clause in federal regulations which permits termination of grants if they no longer align with program goals or agency priorities. Plaintiffs contend that the Trump administration has twisted this clause — in essence, just five words — to claim sweeping authority to halt funding whenever it decides to withdraw support from congressionally approved programs.
In their own words: "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."
Implications for States and Essential Programs
By terminating grants en masse, states argue, the administration jeopardizes crucial services that millions rely upon daily. Programs related to public safety, nutrition, scientific advancement, and health face sudden cuts, leaving states scrambling to meet critical needs.
The lawsuit aims to halt these actions and reaffirm the limits of executive authority over federally appropriated funds, preserving the integrity of grant awards granted by Congress.
