funding

WASHINGTON — Washington is hours away from another federal government shutdown, with prospects looking bleak for a last-minute compromise in Congress to avoid closures beginning at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.

Republicans have crafted a short-term measure to fund the government through Nov. 21, but Democrats have insisted the measure address their concerns on health care. They want to reverse the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s mega-bill passed this summer and extend tax credits that make health insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people who purchase through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act. Republicans call the Democratic proposal a nonstarter.

Neither side shows any signs of budging, with the House not even expected to have votes this week.

Here’s a look at how a shutdown would occur:

What happens in a shutdown?

When a lapse in funding occurs, the law requires agencies to cease activity and furlough “non-excepted” employees. Excepted employees include those who work to protect life and property. They stay on the job but don’t get paid until after the shutdown ends.

During the 35-day partial shutdown in Trump’s first term, 340,000 of the 800,000 federal workers at affected agencies were furloughed. The remainder were “excepted” and required to work.

What government work continues during a shutdown?

A great deal, actually.

FBI investigators, CIA officers, air traffic controllers and agents operating airport checkpoints keep working. So do members of the Armed Forces.

Those programs that rely on mandatory spending also generally continue during a shutdown. Social Security payments continue going out. Seniors relying on Medicare coverage can still see their doctors and health care providers and submit claims for payment and be reimbursed.

Veteran health care also continues during a shutdown. Veterans Affairs medical centers and outpatient clinics will be open, and VA benefits will continue to be processed and delivered. Burials will continue at VA national cemeteries.

Will furloughed federal workers get paid?

Yes. In 2019, Congress passed a bill enshrining into law the requirement that furloughed employees get retroactive pay once operations resume.

While they’ll eventually get paid, the furloughed workers and those who remain on the job may have to go without one or more of their regular paychecks, depending upon how long the shutdown lasts, creating financial stress for many families.

Service members would also receive back pay for any missed paychecks once federal funding resumes.

Will I still get mail?

Yes. The U.S. Postal Service is unaffected by a government shutdown. It’s an independent entity funded through the sale of its products and services, not by tax dollars.

What closes during a shutdown?

All administrations get some leeway to choose which services to freeze and which to maintain in a shutdown.

The first Trump administration worked to blunt the impact of what became the country’s longest partial shutdown in 2018 and 2019. But in the selective reopening of offices, experts say they saw a willingness to cut corners, scrap prior plans and wade into legally dubious territory to mitigate the pain.

Each federal agency develops its own shutdown plan. The plans outline which agency workers would stay on the job during a shutdown and which would be furloughed.

In a provocative move, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget has threatened the mass firing of federal workers in a shutdown. An OMB memo said those programs that didn’t get funding through Trump’s mega-bill this summer would bear the brunt of a shutdown.

Agencies should consider issuing reduction-in-force notices for those programs whose funding expires Wednesday, that don’t have alternative funding sources and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities,” the memo said.

That’d be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when furloughed federal workers returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending. A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but eliminate their positions, which would trigger another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that’s already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the Department of Government Efficiency and elsewhere in Trump’s Republican administration.

Shutdown practices in the past

Some agencies have recently updated plans on their websites. Others still have plans that were last updated months or years ago, providing an indication of past precedent that could guide the Trump administration.

Here are some excerpts from those plans:

— Health and Human Services will furlough about 41% of its staff out of nearly 80,000 employees, according to a contingency plan posted on its website. The remaining employees will keep up activities needed to protect human life and property.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will continue monitoring for disease outbreaks. Direct medical services through the Indian Health Service and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center will remain available. However, the CDC communications to the public will be hampered and NIH will not admit new patients to the Clinical Center, except those for whom it’s medically necessary.

At the Food and Drug Administration, its “ability to protect and promote public health and safety would be significantly impacted, with many activities delayed or paused.” For example, the agency would not accept new drug applications or medical device submissions that require payment of a user fee.

— The Education Department will furlough about 1,500 of 1,700 employees, excluding federal student aid workers. The department will continue to disburse student aid such as Pell Grants and Federal Direct Student Loans. Student loan borrowers will still be required to make payments on their outstanding debt.

— National Park Service: As a general rule if a facility or area is inaccessible during nonbusiness hours, it’ll be locked for the duration of the lapse in funding, said a March 2024 plan. At parks where it’s impractical or impossible to restrict public access, staffing will vary by park: “Generally, where parks have accessible park areas, including park roads, lookouts, trails, campgrounds, and open-air memorials, these areas will remain physically accessible to the public.”

— Transportation Department: Air traffic controller hiring and field training would cease, as would routine personnel security background checks and air traffic performance analysis, a March 2025 update says.

— Smithsonian Institution: “The Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, like all Smithsonian museums, receives federal funding. Thus, during a government shutdown, the Zoo — and the rest of the Smithsonian museums — must close to the public.”

Impact on the economy

Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said a short shutdown doesn’t have a huge impact on the economy, especially since federal workers, by law, are paid retroactively. But “if a shutdown continues, then that can give rise to uncertainties about what is the role of government in our society, and what’s the financial impact on all the programs that the government funds.”

“The impact is not immediate, but over time, there is a negative impact of a shutdown on the economy,” he added.

Markets haven’t reacted strongly to past shutdowns, according to Goldman Sachs Research. At the close of the three prolonged shutdowns since the early 1990s, equity markets finished flat or up even after dipping initially.

A governmentwide shutdown would directly reduce growth by around 0.15 percentage points for each week it lasted, or about 0.2 percentage points per week once private-sector effects were included, and growth would rise by the same cumulative amount in the quarter following reopening, writes Alec Phillips, chief U.S. political economist at Goldman Sachs.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

Sept. 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration has halted funding to three public school districts — in Chicago, Fairfax, Va., and New York City over their diversity policies.

The Department of Education on Thursday pulled $65 million in magnet school funding from the districts 10 days after issuing them a warning, The New York Times reported.

On Sept. 16, the department sent letters to the district accusing them of violating civil rights law. The Trump administration took issue with all three districts allowing transgender students to play in sports and use the bathroom of their choice.

Federal officials also threatened to withhold funds from Chicago schools over a program specifically designed to help Black students, according to Axios.

Department of Education spokeswoman Julie Hartman said that because the districts were willing to “continue their illegal activity” means move to cut funding “falls squarely on them.”

“These are public schools, funded by hardworking American families, and parents have every right to expect an excellent education — not ideological indoctrination masquerading as ‘inclusive’ policy,” she said.

The Chicago Teachers Union said the district is “standing firm” against the Department of Education’s threats.

Chicago Public Schools “and the Board of Education made clear they will not abandon the Black Student Success Plan or roll back protections for transgender students,” a statement from the union said.

“Instead, the district is demanding due process and defending these policies as both legally required and essential for closing opportunity gaps and protecting vulnerable students.”

New York City Public Schools said it had asked the Trump administration for an extension in response to the Sept. 16 letter.

“Cutting this funding — which invests in specialized curricula, afterschool education and summer learning — harms not only the approximately 8,500 students this program currently benefits, but all of our students from underserved communities,” the district said.

Sept. 19 (UPI) — House Republicans expect to hold a vote Friday on legislation that would fund the government through Nov. 21, but a battle over Affordable Care Act subsidies could upend the plans in the Senate.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., said Thursday he expects he’ll have the votes needed to pass the continuing resolution just as he did in March’s CR vote.

“We’re going to get this government funded,” he told reporters, according to NPR. “We’re going to keep the funding going and our appropriators will have more time to do their work.”

With a six-vote majority, House Republicans are likely to pass the CR, but things are less certain in the Senate, where the GOP can afford to lose only two votes.

An unnamed leader among House Republicans told The Hill that the party will attempt to force Senate Democrats into going along with the CR by refusing to return to business in Congress until Oct. 1. Congress is on a break next week in observance of Rosh Hashanah, but House Republicans have also canceled votes previously scheduled for Sept. 29 and Sept. 30.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York ended up striking a deal with Republicans and voted in favor of the March CR to avoid a government shutdown at the time. He could block the bill currently under consideration with a filibuster.

Both Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York have promised to vote against the CR. They cited the need to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

“We will not support a partisan spending bill that Republicans are trying to jam down the throats of the American people that continues to gut healthcare,” Jeffries said Tuesday.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, expressed support for the CR on a post on Truth Social.

“Congressional Republicans, including [Senate Republican] Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson, are working on a short term “CLEAN” extension of Government Funding to stop Cryin’ Chuck Schumer from shutting down the Government,” Trump posted on his social media site.

“In times like these, Republicans have to stick TOGETHER to fight back against the Radical Left Democrat demands, and vote “YES!” on both Votes needed to pass a Clean CRP this week out of the House of Representatives. Democrats want the Government to shut down. Republicans want the Government to OPEN.”

A federal judge Thursday said she was “inclined to extend” an earlier ruling and order the Trump administration to restore an additional $500 million in UCLA medical research grants that were frozen in response to the university’s alleged campus antisemitism violations.

Although she did not issue a formal ruling late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin indicated she is leaning toward reversing — for now — the vast majority of funding freezes that University of California leaders say have endangered the future of the 10-campus, multi-hospital system.

Lin, a judge in the Northern District of California, said she was prepared to add UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grant recipients to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that has already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to UC campuses.

The judge’s reasoning: The UCLA grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking.

Though Lin said she had a “lot of homework to do” on the matter, she indicated that reversing the grant cuts was “likely where I will land” and she would issue an order “shortly.”

Lin said the Trump administration had undertaken a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of the grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.”

The possible preliminary injunction would be in place as the case proceeds through the courts. But in saying she leaned toward broadening the case, Lin suggested she believed there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.

The suit was filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. The University of California is not a party in the case.

A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, Jason Altabet, said Thursday that instead of a federal district court lawsuit filed by professors, the proper venue would be the U.S. Court of Federal Claims filed by UC. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not properly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court.

Altabet said the administration was “fully embracing the principles in the Supreme Court’s recent opinions.”

The hundreds of NIH grants on hold at UCLA look into Parkinson’s disease treatment, cancer recovery, cell regeneration in nerves and other areas that campus leaders argue are pivotal for improving the health of Americans.

The Trump administration has proposed a roughly $1.2-billion fine and demanded campus changes over admission of international students and protest rules. Federal officials have also called for UCLA to release detailed admission data, ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors and give the government deep access to UCLA internal campus data, among other demands, in exchange for restoring $584 million in funding to the university.

In addition to allegations that the university has not seriously dealt with complaints of antisemitism on campus, the government also said it slashed UCLA funding in response to its findings that the campus illegally considers race in admissions and “discriminates against and endangers women” by recognizing the identities of transgender people.

UCLA has said it has made changes to improve campus climate for Jewish communities and does not use race in admissions. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said that defunding medical research “does nothing” to address discrimination allegations. The university displays websites and policies that recognize different gender identities and maintains services for LGBTQ+ communities.

UC leaders said they will not pay the $1.2-billion fine and are negotiating with the Trump administration over its other demands. They have told The Times that many settlement proposals cross the university’s red lines.

“Recent federal cuts to research funding threaten lifesaving biomedical research, hobble U.S. economic competitiveness and jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation,” a UC spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While the University of California is not a party to this suit, the UC system is engaged in numerous legal and advocacy efforts to restore funding to vital research programs across the humanities, social sciences and STEM fields.”

A ruling Lin issued in the case last month resulted in $81 million in NSF grants restored to UCLA. If the UCLA NIH grants are reinstated, it would leave about $3 million from the July suspensions — all Department of Energy grants — still frozen at UCLA.

Lin also said she leaned toward adding Transportation and Defense department grants to the case, which run in the millions of dollars but are small compared with UC’s NIH grants.

The hearing was closely watched by researchers at the Westwood campus, who have cut back on lab hours, reduced operations and considered layoffs as the crisis at UCLA moves toward the two-month mark.

In interviews, they said they were hopeful grants would be reinstated but remain concerned over the instability of their work under the recent federal actions.

Lydia Daboussi, a UCLA assistant professor of neurobiology whose $1-million grant researching nerve injury is suspended, observed the hearing online.

Aftewards, Daboussi said she was “cautiously optimistic” about her grant being reinstated.

“I would really like this to be the relief that my lab needs to get our research back online,” said Daboussi, who is employed at the David Geffen School of Medicine. “If the preliminary injunction is granted, that is a wonderful step in the right direction.”

Grant funding, she said, “was how we bought the antibodies we needed for experiments, how we purchased our reagents and our consumable supplies.” The lab consists of nine other people, including two PhD students and one senior scientist.

So far, none of Daboussi’s lab members have departed. But, she said, if “this goes on for too much longer, at some point, people’s hours will have to be reduced.”

“I do find myself having to pay more attention to volatilities outside of our lab space,” she said. “I’ve now become acquainted with our legal system in ways that I didn’t know would be necessary for my job.”

Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year neuroscience PhD candidate at UCLA, lost a roughly $160,000 NIH grant that funded her study of stroke recovery treatment.

“If there is a chance that these suspensions are lifted, that is phenomenal news,” said Rathbun, who presented at UCLA’s “Science Fair for Suspended Research” this month.

“Lifting these suspensions would then allow us to continue these really critical projects that have already been determined to be important for American health and the future of American health,” she said.

Rathbun’s research is focused on a potential treatment that would be injected into the brain to help rebuild it after a stroke. Since the suspension of her grant, Rathbun, who works out of a lab at UCLA’s neurology department, has been seeking other funding sources.

“Applying to grants takes a lot of time,” she said. “So that really slowed down my progress in my project.”

Carrick Rangers forward Paul Heatley said he hopes his injury against Bangor on Saturday will highlight the urgent need to release funding to clubs to upgrade stadium facilities across Northern Ireland.

The 38-year-old collided with the wall surrounding the pitch at Taylors Avenue eight minutes into the second half of his side’s Irish Premiership game.

He received treatment at the side of the pitch and was taken to hospital after being placed into the ambulance on a stretcher, before being discharged on Sunday.

The decision was then made to abandon the fixture by referee Christopher Morrison as there was no ambulance in place after Heatley was transported from the ground.

Carrick were one of 20 clubs who progressed to the next stage in a bid to secure a slice of the Northern Ireland Football Fund.

They applied for £5.8m for improvements to Taylors Avenue, but will have to go through another stage of assessment before any funding is handed out with no timeline in place for the next steps.

Posting on social media on Monday, Heatley called for “immediate funding” to be released to Irish League clubs to ensure “nothing like this ever happens to any player in the future”.

“Thank you to everyone for all the messages of support from my own club and team-mates to the wider footballing community it has been truly incredible,” he said.

“To the coaches, physios and doctors of both Carrick Rangers FC and Bangor FC I am forever grateful, along with the amazing care given to me from the ambulance service.

“A very special shoutout to the stewards and the girls in the club shop for looking after my children whilst I received treatment, no child should witness such a scene at a football match and you kept them distracted and entertained throughout, thank you all. A few restless nights lay ahead but will take that, knowing it could have ended much worse.

“I hope this incident highlights the need for immediate funding to be released for Irish League clubs to provide a proper, safe environment for players, staff and supporters, to ensure nothing like this ever happens to any player in the future.

“With power comes responsibility, so for those in power and authority around the Irish league, welfare and funding, the responsibility lies with you.

“Thanks again to everyone.”

Coleraine were one of three Irish Premiership clubs to miss out on progression to the next stage of the funding process, along with Crusaders and Portadown.

League of Ireland side Derry City also missed out, while Institute and Limavady United were the other clubs from the north west of Northern Ireland not included in the list announced by Lyons on Thursday morning.

“Geographically, for me, the north west has been shafted again,” Higgins said.

“You might say it is sour grapes because of my connection to Coleranie Football Club and Derry City, but I’ll not talk about either – I’ll talk about Institute.

“If there’s one club that needed support it was them. For me, it’s an absolute disgrace.”

Higgins was referring to the loss of Institute’s home ground in Drumahoe, in 2017 after flash flooding left the stadium unusable with Japanese Knotweed.

Institute now play their home matches at Derry City’s Brandywell Stadium and Drumahoe is now being demolished.

Higgins said Stute had been “dealt the worst hand out of everybody” and felt the process was unfair.

“In 2017 they lost their ground through no fault of their own. It’s a brilliant football club run by brilliant people, and they’ve been absolutely trampled on from what I can see.

“They had a disaster eight years ago and they’ve been given no backing at all. That surprises me in one sense, but when you look geographically where they are based, it doesn’t surprise me at all.”

Speaking at the announcement of funding in Belfast on Thursday morning, before Higgins gave his reaction, Lyons said the location of clubs had not come under consideration.

“This hasn’t been done in terms of geography, it has been done in terms of need and other criteria that we set out,” Lyons said.

“Yes, you can look at the two big ones in Belfast but there are many others throughout Northern Ireland.”

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.

Roberts acted on the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. President Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.

The high court order is temporary, though it suggests the justices will reverse a lower court ruling that withholding the funding was probably illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That’s when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and the possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs. The administration turned to the high court after a panel of federal appellate judges declined to block Ali’s ruling.

Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that an additional $6.5 billion in aid that had been subject to the freeze would be spent before the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

The case has been winding its way through the courts for months, and Ali said he understood that his ruling would not be the last word on the matter.

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an earlier injunction Ali had issued to require that the money be spent. But the three-judge panel did not shut down the lawsuit.

After Trump issued his rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s court and the judge issued the order that’s now being challenged.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 5 (UPI) — The chief executive of PBS said Thursday that the company was cutting 15% of its workforce due to an elimination of federal funding of public broadcasting.

There were 34 people laid off Thursday, and with the elimination of vacant positions and the loss of a federal grant, it means more than 100 jobs were lost.

PBS Chief Executive Paula Kerger said the organization has lost 21% of revenues.

“In this unprecedented moment we remain focused on what matters most: ensuring our member stations can deliver quality content and services to communities across America,” a PBS spokesperson said.

Kerger said in an email to general managers that the PBS foundation had received a “significant grant” from a major donor to support PBS News Hour and PBS Kids, but they still needed to make “significant changes in our staffing and operations.” The job reductions include those tied to Ready to Learn, which had Department of Education funding that also was eliminated, Deadline reported.

In July, Congress voted to rescind $1.1 billion in funds to public broadcasting.

Public media had used an advanced appropriations cycle, which means Congress had already allocated funds through 2027. President Donald Trump threatened to withhold support for anyone in Congress who didn’t vote for the rescissions bill.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes grants to public media outlets, is shutting down at the end of the year. It was created by Congress in 1967.

PBS only took a small portion of direct funding from the CPB, but stations also paid dues to PBS, which distributes shows like PBS News Hour and Masterpiece. Stations in rural areas and smaller cities relied more on federal funds, according to public media advocates.

Some stations, including KQED in San Francisco and GBH in Boston, have had layoffs.

NPR CEO Katherine Maher has said she will cut the network’s budget by $8 million to give savings to public stations most affected by the cuts.

On the CBS Late Show, Maher told Stephen Colbert that an estimated 70 to 80 of NPR’s 246 member stations may have to shut down.

Public radio stations typically take about 10% of their revenues from the CPB and pay NPR for the right to broadcast its shows, NPR reported.

For some stations, particularly those serving rural and Native American audiences, reliance on federal money was far greater.

The Trump administration must release billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress, including money that President Trump said last week he would not spend, a federal judge has ordered.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington ruled Wednesday that the Republican administration’s decision to withhold the funding was likely illegal. He issued a preliminary injunction ordering the release of $11.5 billion that is set to expire at the end of the month.

“To be clear, no one disputes that Defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the Court is not directing Defendants to make payments to any particular recipients,” wrote Ali, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. “But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.”

The administration filed a notice of appeal Thursday.

“President Trump has the executive authority to ensure that all foreign aid is accountable to taxpayers and aligns with the America First priorities people voted for,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, president and chief executive of Global Health Council, one of the groups in the case, said in a statement the decision was a victory for “the rule of law” and reaffirmed that “only Congress controls the power of the purse.”

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter on Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission, in which a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of the budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years that a president has used the tactic. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

Ali said Congress would have to approve the rescission proposal for the administration to withhold the money.

The law is “explicit that it is congressional action — not the President’s transmission of a special message — that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations,” he wrote.

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the funding as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals, and in January, he issued an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to freeze spending on foreign aid.

Nonprofit organizations that sued the government said the freeze shut down funding for urgent lifesaving programs abroad.

A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled last month that the administration could suspend the money. The judges later revised that opinion, reviving the lawsuit before Ali.

In his ruling, Ali said he understood that his decision would not be the last word in the case, adding that “definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive.”

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Thalia Beaty in New York contributed to this report.

The University of California’s top leader has raised the “distinct possibility” that financial losses due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts could amount to billions of dollars and extend beyond UCLA to the entire 10-campus system, telling state legislators Wednesday that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.”

In a letter to dozens of lawmakers obtained by The Times, UC President James B. Milliken said the university is facing “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history” after the Trump administration cut off more than $500 million in grants to UCLA before demanding a $1.2-billion fine over allegations of campus antisemitism.

Milliken outlined the potential losses at the nation’s preeminent public university system under Trump’s higher education agenda in his strongest and most detailed public words since starting the job Aug. 1, days after funding troubles hit UCLA.

UC “receives over $17 billion per year from the federal government — $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, $5.7 billion in research funding, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid per year,” Milliken wrote in the letter addressed to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. If such funds were lost, Milliken wrote, “we would need at least $4-5 billion per year to minimize the damage.”

“A substantial loss of federal funding would devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians. Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad.”

Milliken, who met with lawmakers in Sacramento last month, penned his message in response to an Aug. 31 letter from Wiener and 33 other legislators, who urged UC leaders to “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown” from President Trump, whose actions the lawmakers said were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook.”

In a statement about the letter, a UC spokesperson said the university “is committed to working with leaders in Sacramento and across the country to ensure we have the resources we need to continue generating jobs, life-changing discoveries, and economic opportunity in the face of historic challenges.”

In addition to grant cuts and the $1.2-billion fine demand from UCLA, the Trump administration has also proposed sweeping changes at the Westwood campus. They include the release of detailed admissions data — the government accuses UCLA of illegally considering race when awarding seats — restrictions on protests, and an end to race-related scholarships and diversity hiring programs. The Department of Justice has also called for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA healthcare systems.

The Trump administration accuses UCLA of violating civil rights law by not taking antisemitism seriously. Although there have been complaints of antisemitism on campus since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza, a number of influential faculty members, staff and students, including many in the Jewish campus community, have said UCLA has made progress on addressing the campus climate.

“Free speech, academic freedom, scientific research, and democracy are values that have led to Jewish flourishing. These attacks on California, on our immigrant communities, on science, and on LGBTQ people stand in stark contrast to Jewish values,” Wiener wrote in the letter whose signatories included members of California Legislative Jewish Caucus, of which Weiner is co-chair.

Wiener’s letter urged UC leaders to fight the government’s demands as the university negotiates with the DOJ.

“Acceding to these reprehensible demands won’t stabilize the UC system; it will betray our values of protecting and celebrating our most vulnerable communities. Giving in will only encourage further unconstitutional behavior by this administration,” said the letter, addressed to Milliken, the UC Board of Regents and UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.

“Concessions by UCLA would establish a damaging precedent for extorting public schools in states with leadership that does not bow down to this President,” Wiener and others wrote, who described federal demands as “extortion,” echoing statements by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“We must resist Trump’s extortion to protect public higher education, the economy, our students and California’s values,” the lawmakers wrote.

Although the university has engaged with the Trump administration to restore UCLA funding, no settlement has been reached and there is a wide gulf between the two sides on what terms would be acceptable.

Newsom has called the government’s proposed fine “ransom,” saying he wants UC to sue the administration and not “bend the knee” to Trump.

But the decision over a lawsuit rests with the independent UC Board of Regents. The governor has appointed many but not all of the regents and sits as a voting member on the 24-person board. Newsom can exercise political sway over its moves but, aside from his vote, has no formal power over the body’s decisions.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — A federal judge cited First Amendment rights Wednesday in an order blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold more than $2 billion in government funding from Harvard University.

U.S. Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts restored the funding — in the form of grants and contracts — in response to a lawsuit brought by the university and employee groups. The lawsuit accused the President Donald Trump of leveraging the funding “to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.”

Among the programs affected by the block in funding were research in science and medicine, including on radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment.

Trump attempted to withhold funding and block Harvard from admitting international students after taking issue with students’ anti-Israel protests over the war in Gaza. The administration accused Harvard of failing to crack down on anti-Semitism.

Burroughs said that while Harvard was wrong to not attempt to curtail “hateful behavior for as long as it did,” she doubts the administration’s stated aims.

“The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting anti-semitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combatting anti-Semitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment,” she wrote.

In June, Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s efforts to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard.

SEOUL, Sept. 2 (UPI) — Hak Ja Han, leader of the Unification Church, publicly denied she had ever directed aides to undertake illicit influence peddling.

“False claims are being spread that, under my direction, our church provided illegal political funds,” she said Sunday. “I have never instructed any unlawful political solicitation or financial transaction.”

Her remarks came as a special prosecutor deepened investigations into the religious movement’s political ties, bringing renewed attention to allegations involving conservative legislator Kweon Seong-dong.

Han issued her statement as prosecutors examined claims that the church, formally known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, provided illicit financial support to sitting lawmakers. Kweon, a longtime ally of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, has admitted to meeting Han but denied receiving any funds.

According to indictment documents cited in South Korean media, prosecutors allege that, in October 2022, Kweon warned Yoon Young-ho, then director of the church’s global headquarters, that authorities were preparing to investigate possible illegal overseas gambling linked to the church.

He allegedly told Yoon to prepare for a search, after which church officials reportedly ordered staff members to alter financial records from 2010 to 2013.

Separately, Yonhap News reported that the Unification Church has filed an embezzlement complaint against its former finance chief, who also is the wife of Yoon Young-ho. The complaint accuses her of misappropriating about 2 billion won (approximately $1.4 million) in church funds, part of which allegedly was used to purchase a luxury Graff necklace.

Han’s categorical denial has drawn further attention from prosecutors, who now must determine whether her statement conflicts with testimony or documentary evidence.

Heather Colley and her two children moved four times over five years as they fled high rents in eastern Tennessee, which, like much of rural America, hasn’t been spared from soaring housing costs.

A family gift in 2021 of a small plot of land offered a shot at homeownership, but building a house was beyond reach for the 45-year-old single mother and manicurist making $18.50 an hour.

That changed when she qualified for a $272,000 grant from a nonprofit to build a three-bedroom home because of a program that has helped make affordable housing possible in rural areas for decades. She and her family moved in in June.

“Every time I pull into my garage, I pinch myself,” Colley said.

Now, President Trump wants to eliminate that grant, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and House Republicans overseeing federal budget negotiations did not include funding for it in their budget proposal. Experts and state housing agencies say that would set back tens of thousands of future affordable housing developments nationwide, particularly hurting Appalachian towns and rural counties where government aid is sparse and investors are few.

The program has helped build or repair more than 1.3 million affordable homes in the last three decades, of which at least 540,000 were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal data.

“Maybe they don’t realize how far-reaching these programs are,” said Colley, who voted for Trump in 2024. Among those half a million homes that HOME helped build, 84% were in districts that voted for him last year, the AP analysis found.

“I understand we don’t want excessive spending and wasting taxpayer dollars,” Colley said, “but these proposed budget cuts across the board make me rethink the next time I go to the polls.”

The HOME program, started under President George H.W. Bush in the 1990s, survived years of budget battles but has been stretched thin by years of rising construction costs and stagnant funding. That’s meant fewer units, including in some rural areas where home prices have grown faster than in cities.

The program has spent more than $38 billion nationwide since it began filling in funding gaps and attracting more investment to acquire, build and repair affordable homes, federal Department of Housing and Urban Development data show. Additional funding has gone toward rental assistance and projects that have yet to be finished.

Political limbo

To account for the gap left by the proposed cuts, House Republicans want to draw on nearly $5 billion from a related pandemic-era fund that gave states until 2030 to spend on projects supporting people who are unhoused or facing homelessness.

That $5 billion, however, may be far less, since many projects haven’t yet been logged into HUD’s tracking system, according to state housing agencies and associations representing them.

A spokesperson for HUD, which administers the program, said HOME isn’t as effective as other programs where the money would be better spent.

In opposition to Trump, Senate Republicans have still included funding for HOME in their draft budget. In the coming negotiations, both chambers may compromise and reduce but not terminate HOME’s funding, or extend last year’s overall budget.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle didn’t respond to specific questions from the AP. Instead, Ingle said that Trump’s commitment to cutting red tape is making housing more affordable.

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to reduce HOME’s notorious red tape that even proponents say slows construction.

Some rural areas more dependent on HOME

In Owsley County — one of the nation’s poorest, in the rural Kentucky hills — residents struggle in an economy blighted by coal mine closures and declining tobacco crop revenues.

Affordable homes are needed there, but tough to build in a region that doesn’t attract larger-scale rental developments that federal dollars typically go toward.

That’s where HOME comes in, said Cassie Hudson, who runs Partnership Housing in Owsley, which has relied on the program to build the majority of its affordable homes for at least a dozen years.

A lack of additional funding for HOME has already made it hard to keep up with construction costs, Hudson said, and the organization builds a quarter of the single-family homes it used to.

“Particularly for deeply rural places and persistent poverty counties, local housing developers are the only way homes and new rental housing gets built,” said Joshua Stewart of Fahe, a coalition of Appalachian nonprofits.

That’s in part because investment is scant and HOME steps in when construction costs exceed what a home can be sold for — a common barrier in poor areas of Appalachia. Some developers use the profits to build more affordable units. Its loss would erode those nonprofits’ ability to build affordable homes in years to come, Stewart said.

One of those nonprofits, Housing Development Alliance, helped Tiffany Mullins in Hazard, Ky., which was ravaged by floods. Mullins, a single mother of four who makes $14.30 an hour at Walmart, bought a house there thanks to HOME funding and moved in in August.

Mullins sees the program as preserving a rural way of life, recalling when folks owned homes and land with gardens — “we had chickens, cows. Now you don’t see much of that.”

A long-term effect

In congressional budget negotiations, HOME is an easier target than programs such as vouchers because most people would not immediately lose their housing, said Tess Hembree, executive director of the Council of State Community Development Agencies.

The effect of any reduction would instead be felt in a fizzling of new affordable housing supply. When HOME funding was temporarily reduced to $900 million in 2015, “10 to 15 years later, we’re seeing the ramifications,” Hembree said.

That includes affordable units built in cities. The biggest program that funds affordable rental housing nationwide, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, uses HOME grants for 12% of units, totaling 324,000 current individual units, according to soon-to-be-published Urban Institute research.

Trump’s spending bill that Republicans passed this summer increased that program, but experts say further reducing or cutting HOME would make those credits less usable.

“It’s LIHTC plus HOME, usually,” said Tim Thrasher, chief executive of Community Action Partnership of North Alabama, which builds affordable apartments for some of the nation’s poorest.

In the lush mountains of eastern West Virginia, Woodlands Development Group relies on HOME for its smaller rural projects. Because it helps people with a wider range of incomes, HOME is “one of the only programs available to us that allows us to develop true workforce housing,” said Executive Director Dave Clark.

It’s those workers — nurses, first responders, teachers — that nonprofits like east Tennessee’s Creative Compassion use HOME to build for. With the program in jeopardy, grant administrator Sarah Halcott said she fears for her clients battling rising housing costs.

“This is just another nail in the coffin for rural areas,” Halcott said.

Kramon, Bedayn, Herbst and Kessler write for the Associated Press. Kramon reported from Atlanta, Bedayn from Denver, Herbst from New York City and Kessler from Washington.

Vanessa Clarke/BBC

Chloe Hart

Vanessa Clarke/BBC

Rachel Williams

‘Free’ childcare

Vanessa Clarke/BBC

The cancellation is Trump’s latest move against renewable energy, which the US president has dismissed a ‘scam’.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has moved to cancel $679m in federal funding for offshore wind projects, in its latest salvo against renewable energy.

The move on Friday is set to affect 12 offshore projects, including a $427m project in California, as Trump pushes to deregulate and re-prioritise fossil fuels.

In a statement, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the funding was a waste of money “that could otherwise go towards revitalising America’s maritime industry”.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritising real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects that cost much and offer little,” he said.

The funding had been awarded under the administration of former President Joe Biden as part of a wider pivot towards green energy.

Among the cancellations was funding for The Humboldt Bay project, which was meant to be the first offshore wind terminal on the Pacific coast.

A spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has emerged as a leading state opponent to Trump, criticised the action as an example of the administration “assaulting clean energy and infrastructure projects – hurting business and killing jobs in rural areas, and ceding our economic future to China”.

The cuts include a $47m grant for an offshore wind logistics and manufacturing hub near the Port of Baltimore in Maryland, as well as $48m awarded in 2022 for an offshore wind terminal project near New York’s Staten Island.

Also cut was $33m for a port project in Salem, Massachusetts, to redevelop a vacant industrial facility for offshore wind projects.

In a statement, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said cancelling the Salem grant will cost 800 construction workers their jobs.

“The real waste here is the Trump administration cancelling tens of millions of dollars for a project that is already under way to increase our energy supply,” she said.

The latest trimming comes after the Trump administration abruptly halted construction of a nearly complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Department of the Interior said the move was necessary to address national security concerns, without providing further details.

In early August, the Interior Department also cancelled a major wind farm in Idaho, which had been approved in the final days of Biden’s presidency.

Multiple federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy and Commerce, said they are reviewing offshore wind farms approved by the Biden administration along the Atlantic coast.

Trump has regularly lashed out at green energy, and particularly wind power, calling it an ugly and expensive form of energy that “smart” countries do not use.

Yet, foreign allies and rivals alike have increasingly embraced renewable energy in an effort to slow the ravages of climate change. China, for instance, has invested heavily in solar and wind energy and has become a leading source for wind turbine parts.

Critics have said Trump’s approach will set the US back behind its competitors.

Last week, as US electricity prices rose at more than twice the rate of inflation, Trump falsely blamed renewable power for the skyrocketing prices, calling the industry a “scam”.

On Tuesday, he pledged not to move forward with any wind power projects.

“We’re not allowing any windmills to go up unless there’s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago,” Trump said at a cabinet meeting.

Los Angeles classical music station KUSC-FM (91.5) has laid off employees after Republicans cut federal funding from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.

James A. Muhammad, president of Classical California, the entity that operates the nonprofit KUSC and its sister station, KDFC in San Francisco, confirmed the workforce reduction in a note sent Thursday to its listeners.

“Despite our best efforts, the fact is that Classical California has experienced a reduction of $1.1 million in support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Muhammad wrote. “This, along with other impacts, requires us to make difficult decisions across KUSC-FM and KDFC-FM.”

A representative for Classical California did not respond to questions on the number of employees cut. A person briefed on the move who was not authorized to comment publicly said it was eight positions, including two department managers, all based in Los Angeles.

None of the announcers at the two stations were included in the cuts.

Classical California is among the many public media outlets that are scrambling to fill the budget gaps caused by the decision by the Trump White House and the Republican Congress to claw back the $1.1 billion in federal money allocated to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.

The nonprofit entity administered the funds for public radio and TV stations, mostly affiliates of NPR and PBS.

Conservatives and libertarians have long called for the end of public funds supporting media organizations, especially ones they view as politically left-leaning. Trump has called NPR and PBS government-funded “left-wing propaganda.”

The Corp. for Public Broadcasting was also a vital revenue source for cultural and fine arts programming that often struggles to sustain itself in the commercial media marketplace.

Both KUSC and KDFC, which are owned and operated by the University of Southern California, play classical music 24 hours a day and are not NPR affiliates. They are the most-listened-to classical radio stations in the U.S.

Muhammad’s note to listeners included a plea for contributions to make up for the shortfall caused by the cuts.

“We remain committed to continuing to be your home for classical music,” Muhammad said. “As a listener-supported station, we need your support of KUSC and KDFC, now more than ever.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has told House Speaker Mike Johnson that he won’t be spending $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

Trump, who sent a letter to Johnson, R-La., on Thursday, is using what’s known as a pocket rescission — when a president submits a request to Congress to not spend approved funds toward the end of the fiscal year, so that Congress cannot act on the request in the 45-day timeframe and the money goes unspent as a result. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years a president has used one. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

The letter was posted Friday morning on the X account of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said the funding would be cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, an early target of Trump’s efforts to cut foreign aid.

The last pocket rescission was in 1977 by then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues that it’s a legally permissible tool. But such a move, if standardized by the White House, could effectively bypass Congress on key spending choices and potentially wrest some control over spending from the House and the Senate.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to Sept. 30 the White House ensures that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.

Trump had previously sought to get congressional backing for rescissions and succeeded in doing so in July when the House and the Senate approved $9 billion worth of cuts. Those rescissions clawed back funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs.

In February, the administration said it would eliminate almost all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall assistance abroad. USAID has since been dismantled, and its few remaining programs have been placed under State Department control.

The Trump administration on Wednesday appealed to the Supreme Court to stop lower court decisions that have preserved foreign aid, including for global health and HIV and AIDS programs, that Trump has tried to freeze.

The New York Post first reported the pocket rescission.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

An independent commission of inquiry investigating violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory has warned it cannot continue its work.

Severe funding shortages are derailing the body established by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in 2021.

The United States withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council earlier this year. Still, it continues to owe about $1.5bn in outstanding fees to the UN.

What, then, is the impact on this commission in the face of rapidly increasing Israeli settler violence and the illegal expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Andrew Gilmour – Former UN assistant secretary-general for human rights

Sari Bashi – Human rights lawyer and founder of Gisha, an Israeli human rights organisation

William Schabas – Professor of international law at Middlesex University and a former chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict

The Trump administration has canceled a sexual education grant to California worth about $12.3 million on the grounds that it included “radical gender ideology” after state officials refused to revise the materials.

The funding helps pay for sex education programs in juvenile justice facilities, homeless shelters and foster care group homes, as well as some schools, reaching an estimated 13,000 youths per year through 20 agencies.

State officials did not have an immediate response Thursday morning to the federal announcement, which was linked to a 60-day compliance deadline.

“California’s refusal to comply with federal law and remove egregious gender ideology from federally funded sex-ed materials is unacceptable,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison, of the Administration for Children and Families. “The Trump Administration will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children. Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology.”

State officials had taken the position that its materials are accurate and did not violate the terms of the federal grant.

California is not being accused of failing to carry out the abstinence and contraception instruction funded by the grant. Rather, the state has included additional content that the Trump administration defines as objectionable and “outside the scope” of the grant’s purpose.

A June 20 letter to a senior California official cited, as one of several examples, sample wording from a middle school lesson:

“We’ve been talking during class about messages people get on how they should act as boys and girls — but as many of you know, there are also people who don’t identify as boys or girls, but rather as transgender or gender queer. This means that even if they were called a boy or a girl at birth and may have body parts that are typically associated with being a boy or a girl, on the inside, they feel differently.”

The California Department of Public Health responded in an Aug. 19 letter that it “will not make any such modifications at this time” because its materials already had been approved by the same agency that is now demanding change. In addition, officials described the materials as “medically accurate” and relevant to the instructional goals. California also challenged whether the Trump administration had authority to cancel the grant in this manner.

The amount of money at stake is small compared with other issues that are being litigated between California and the Trump administration, but the dispute embodies now-familiar legal parameters that have resulted in more than three dozen lawsuits.

The grant cancellation also represents another front in the conflict between the Trump administration and California related to LGBTQ+ issues. These culture war-fueled disputes date back substantially to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that recognized two sexes, male and female, a dictum that has moved across all departments under his jurisdiction.

In youth sports, this divide has unfolded with Trump threatening to withhold vast sums of federal funding unless California bars transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.

California has responded by creating dual-award categories for women’s sporting events, so that the success of a trans athlete, in a track-and-field competition for example, would not prevent another athlete from winning an award. The compromise does not address the issue of trans athletes in women’s team sports, such as volleyball.

The Trump administration does not accept these steps taken by California as compliance with its directives.

Within the classroom, the Trump policy opposes curriculum that allows for more than a binary — male or female — expression of gender. Historically, federal authority over local curriculum has been limited, but Trump has been quick to use federal funding as leverage.

In this case, it’s the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that has been applying pressure.

The children and families department administers a grant program that annually distributes $75 million nationally “to educate adolescents on … both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS,” according to federal statute.

For a three-year period, through the next fiscal year, California has been allotted funding worth more than $18.2 million, according to Health and Human Services. Under the federal decision, the state is expected to lose $12.3 million that it has not yet received, covering multiple years.

The federal grant supports the California Personal Responsibility Education Program, or CA PREP, which provides “comprehensive sexual health education to adolescents via effective, evidence-based or evidence-informed program models,” according to a statement from the state.

“Data show that participants who completed CA PREP had a better understanding of sexual and reproductive health topics and improved health outcomes,” the health department stated.

The Trump administration does not deny that the federal government had previously approved the California materials, but said the Biden administration “erred in allowing PREP grants to be used to teach students gender ideology.”

California law requires school districts to provide students with comprehensive sexual health education, along with information about HIV prevention, at least once in high school and once in middle school.

The Trump administration has asserted complete authority over federal grants, including those in progress. Many of its grant cancellations are being challenged in court. Some have been allowed to take effect; others have been blocked. In some instances, Congress has narrowly approved grant cancellations, including for foreign aid and to support the public broadcasting network.