Nessel among AGs suing Trump administration for slashing billions of already awarded funding

Five words.

That’s the basis on which 20 Democratic attorneys general, including Michigan’s Dana Nessel, and one state governor, are contesting sweeping cuts to federal grants and aid in a new lawsuit against the Trump administration. The 80-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on Tuesday centers on how the Trump administration has interpreted a five-word section of federal regulations to rationalize a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign,” abruptly terminating billions in already awarded funding to state and local governments, research institutions, universities and more.

The full, 2020 rule promoted by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget states that federal agencies can cut off 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.” OMB made clear that federal agencies can only terminate grants when there is evidence that the money is not achieving its intended goals or that there is cause to “significantly question” feasibility of achieving the goal.

But Trump’s administration in a Feb. 26 executive order selectively picked five words from the regulation “no longer effectuates…agency priorities” — to justify abrupt cuts to federal aid.

“In effectuating this directive, Agency Defendants now assert—for the first time— that the Clause means something completely new: That the Clause permits agencies to terminate grant awards when the agency simply changes its mind,” the lawsuit states.

Since the initial order authorizing the Department of Government Efficiency to get involved in federal agency grant distributions, the same phrase has featured prominently in subsequent orders, agency memos and explanations for slashing billions of dollars in aid to a wide host of recipients across the country.

“Whether or not Donald Trump and his administration believe it, our democracy is built on the separation of powers and the rule of law,” Nessel said. “That’s why my Democratic colleagues and I have been successful in securing 10 injunctions so far against the White House’s unlawful federal actions. The use of this mere five-word clause is just another example in a long pattern of how the Trump Administration believes they can illegally contort the law to slash billions of dollars in federal funding – funding that was authorized by Congress and that everyday Michiganders depend on. I will continue to fight, tooth and nail, against such harmful and unconstitutional policies.”

The complaint, which names a dozen federal agency heads as defendants, offers a litany of examples of the consequences of abrupt cuts to already awarded federal grants and aid: losing habitat restoration in Maine, ending efforts to combat hate crimes in New Jersey, ceasing shelter programs for migrants in Illinois released from overcrowded federal detention centers and cutting off research of air quality risks from wildfire smoke in rural Nevada.

“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,” the lawsuit states.

Even federal aid still flowing remains at risk, compromising safety and support to people who qualify for food assistance programs and those who live in flood zones, farmers, minority students, scientists, and more, the lawsuit states.

Arguing that the federal administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procuredures Act, the AGs have asked a federal judge to permanently clarify that federal regulations do not grant federal agencies “unfettered power” to terminate funding already awarded. Or, as an alternative, they have asked a judge to toss the Trump administration’s interpretation of the clause in question. The request, if granted, would apply to all existing and future federal grants.

Natalie Baldassarre, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is representing the federal agencies, declined to comment on the lawsuit in an email Tuesday.

In addition to Nessel, the other AGs who filed the complaint represent Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is also representing his state in the case.

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: [email protected].