States Challenge Trump Cuts Over ‘Agency Priorities’ Clause/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Attorneys general from over 20 states and D.C. have filed a federal lawsuit in Boston to block the Trump administration’s use of a little-known “agency priorities” clause to cancel billions in federal grants supporting programs like crime prevention, food security, and scientific research. The suit contends that this interpretation exceeds legal authority and undermines Congress’s constitutional role in federal budgeting. Multiple states have already had temporary victories halting similar cuts, and now the coalition is pushing a broader challenge.
Federal Grant Cuts Lawsuit Quick Look
- Who Filed It: Attorneys general from 20+ states and Washington, D.C.
- Where: Federal court in Boston
- Why: To stop the Trump administration from cutting billions in federal grants using the “agency priorities” clause
- Programs Affected: Crime prevention, food security, scientific research, health, and education
- Legal Argument: Clause is being misused; originally intended for limited circumstances, not sweeping terminations
- Examples Cited: Terminated USDA food distribution funding in Massachusetts, EPA asthma prevention grant cuts
- Key Quotes:
- “Unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans” – Rhode Island AG Neronha
- “No ‘because I don’t like you’ clause in law” – Connecticut AG Tong
- Next Steps: Plaintiffs seek a court injunction to block further grant cancellations
States Challenge Trump Cuts Over ‘Agency Priorities’ Clause
Deep Look
BOSTON (AP) — A coalition of more than 20 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday in Boston, seeking judicial limits on the Trump administration’s use of a little‑known clause in federal regulations to slash billions in grant funding—even for programs already awarded money.
The states argue that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is misusing a clause that allows the termination of grants that “no longer effectuates … agency priorities” to cancel thousands of grants across programs ranging from crime prevention and food security to scientific research.
“Defendants’ decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,” the lawsuit states, claiming the clause was never intended to permit this kind of sweeping, discretionary defunding.
The legal challenge portrays the administration’s actions as part of a “slash‑and‑burn campaign” aimed at stripping essential services from states—including meals for vulnerable citizens and educational support—without congressional approval.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, leading the coalition, said this suit marks the broadest attempt yet to stop the funding cuts, noting that states have already secured several legal victories to temporarily block similar actions. Attempts to obtain comment from the OMB Tuesday afternoon were unsuccessful.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong criticized the cuts as “indiscriminate and illegal,” emphasizing that “there is no ‘because I don’t like you’ defunding clause in federal law.” He added, “Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell highlighted real‑world consequences: USDA cutting $11 million from farm‑to‑food‑bank initiatives, and EPA halting a $1 million asthma‑reduction grant in low‑income communities.
“We cannot stand idly by while this President … launches unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts’ residents,” she said.
At issue is a five‑word phrase that legal challengers say is being interpreted to grant agencies “virtually unfettered authority” to cancel funding, overriding Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. The lawsuit seeks a judicial order preventing further use of this clause to terminate or withhold grants.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.