funds

July 22 (UPI) — A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent “in accordance with the president’s priorities,” the lawsuit states, citing the letter.

The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump‘s March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states.

Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump’s mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration’s freeze on Monday as throwing a “monkey wrench” at millions of U.S. educators.

“These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president,” she said in a statement.

“Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It’s not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids’ futures at the alter of ideology.”

Among the plaintiffs are Alaska’s largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will release an estimated $1.3 billion in previously withheld grant money for schools nationwide, but has warned states that it will rescind funding not spent for “allowable activities.”

About $5 billion to $6 billion remains in limbo. In typical years, this funding would have begun reaching states and school districts starting on July 1. California joined about two dozen states this week in suing for the release of the funds, calling the Trump administration action “unconstitutional, unlawful and arbitrary.”

In filing their lawsuit, California officials estimated that they were due close to a billion dollars. The California Department of Education said it received word Friday that the partial release represented about $158 million of that total.

The partial release came after 10 Republican senators on Wednesday sent a letter imploring the Trump administration to allow frozen education money to be sent to states.

The senators said the withheld money supported programs that had longstanding bipartisan support and were critical to local communities. The money had been appropriated by Congress in a bill that was signed by President Trump.

“We share your concern about taxpayer money going to fund radical left-wing programs,” the senators wrote to the Office of Management and Budget. “However, we do not believe that is happening with these funds.”

The Trump administration has argued otherwise, alleging that funding has been used to undermine policy goals that include having all classes conducted in English. The administration also accused agencies of using funds to advocate for immigrants who lack legal status in the country.

The notification to states about the release includes a long list of laws that states are warned not to violate including the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans discrimination based on sex.

“To the extent that a grantee uses grant funds for such unallowable activities,” which the notice does not define specifically, “the [Education] Department intends to take appropriate enforcement action … which may include the recovery of funds.”

In separate actions, the Trump administration already has threatened California with pulling all federal funding for violations of Trump administration policy. This threat was made recently in connection with the state allowing trans athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports and government officials designating their jurisdictions as sanctuaries for immigrants.

What the money pays for

The withheld money paid for after-school and summer programs, adult literacy, English language instruction, teacher training and migrant education supports. The Office of Management and Budget said it held back the funds as part of a review to align spending with White House priorities.

The funds released Friday were partly intended to support many summer school programs, some of which shut down across the country due to the hold-back. This funding also supports after-school programming during the regular school year.

Without the money, school districts and nonprofits such as the YMCA and Boys and Girls Clubs of America had said they would have to close or scale back educational offerings this fall.

The money released Friday also pays for child care so low-income parents can work. In these programs, children also receive reading and math help, along with enrichment in science and the arts.

Despite the money’s release Friday, schools and nonprofits have already been disrupted by two weeks of uncertainty. Some programs have made plans to close, and others have fallen behind on hiring and contracting for the fall.

“While we are thrilled the funds will be made available,” said Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, “the administration’s inexplicable delay in disbursing them caused massive chaos and harm.” Many after-school programs had canceled plans to open in the fall, she said.

David Schuler, executive director of AASA, an association of school superintendents, praised the release of after-school money but said that the remaining education funding should not be withheld.

“Districts should not be in this impossible position where the Administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress,” Schuler said in a statement. “The remaining funds must be released immediately — America’s children are counting on it.”

Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees education spending, was among the senators who signed the letter, which called for the full release of funds, including for adult education and teaching English as a second language.

“The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President Trump’s goal of returning K-12 education to the states,” the senators wrote. “This funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called on the White House to release the rest of the money.

“At this very moment, schools nationwide are crunching the numbers to figure out how many teachers they will need to lay off as Trump continues to hold up billions in funding,” Murray said Friday in a statement. “Every penny of this funding must flow immediately.”

Ma writes for the Associated Press.

July 17 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate early Thursday voted to rescind some $9 billion in federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, two areas of the government that the Trump administration has long targeted for cuts.

The senators voted 51-48 mostly along party lines to approve House Bill 4 with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining the Democrats in voting against it.

The bill, which now goes to the House of Representatives, will cut about $8 billion from international aid programs and about $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The bill passed at about 2:20 a.m. EDT Thursday.

“President Trump promised to cut wasteful spending and root out misuse of taxpayer dollars,” Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said on X prior to the vote. “Now, @SenateGOP and I are voting to make these cuts permanent. Promises made, promises kept.”

The vote comes as the Trump administration faces criticism from Democrats, and some Republicans, for having promised to reduce government spending but then last month passed a massive tax and spending cuts bill that is expected to add $3.3 trillion to the U.S. deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the Cato Institute states it could add nearly double that, as much as $6 trillion.

The Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funds local news and radio infrastructure, has been a target of the Trump administration for funding a small portion of the budgets of PBS and NPR, which he accuses of being biased.

Murkowski chastised her fellow Republicans for attacking a service that informed Alaskans that same day that there was a magnitude 7.3 earthquake and a tsunami warning.

“Some colleagues claim they are targeting ‘radical leftist organizations’ with these cuts, but in Alaska, these are simply organizations dedicated to their communities,” she said on social media. “Their response to today’s earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide. They deliver local news, weather updates and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives.”

US president blasts long-delayed project to link Los Angeles and San Francisco as a ‘boondoggle’ and a ‘train to nowhere’.

United States President Donald Trump has pulled the plug on $4bn in funding for a long-delayed high-speed rail line in California, blasting the project as a “boondoggle” and a “train to nowhere”.

Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday that he had “freed” taxpayers from the “disastrously overpriced” proposed railway linking Los Angeles and San Francisco, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

“This boondoggle, led by the incompetent Governor of California, Gavin Newscum, has cost Taxpayers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we have received NOTHING in return except Cost Overruns,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, using a nickname he commonly deploys to mock the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

“The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will.”

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy accused Democrats of wasting taxpayers’ money and said federal money was not a “blank cheque”.

“It’s time for this boondoggle to die,” Duffy said in a statement.

Newsom slammed the Trump administration’s move as illegal and said the state would put “all options on the table” to oppose the funding cut.

“Trump wants to hand China the future and abandon the Central Valley. We won’t let him,” Newsom said in a statement.

The 1,249km (776-mile) rail line, which was approved by California voters in a 2008 plebiscite, was initially envisaged for completion in 2020 at a cost of $33bn.

The project’s estimated cost has since ballooned to $89bn to $128bn, with services not expected to begin until 2033 at the earliest.

The US currently does not have a high-speed rail service, but a 354km (220-mile) high-speed link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is scheduled to begin operations in 2028.

WASHINGTON,, July 16 (UPI) — A fiery House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday exposed deep partisan divisions over the role of non-governmental organizations in aiding migrants.

Republicans accused faith-based and humanitarian groups of enabling illegal immigration, while Democrats sharply criticized holding the session as a political stunt that targeted religious freedom.

The hearing marked an escalation in the Republican-led effort to scrutinize the role of non-governmental organizations in federal immigration policy.

GOP lawmakers argued that groups receiving taxpayer dollars are contributing to what they called a historic border crisis by providing services to undocumented migrants who are not being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Conversely, Democrats vehemently argued that the purpose of the hearing was a politically motivated attempt to discredit humanitarian organizations.

Led by Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., the hearing centered on claims that the former Biden administration created the “worst border crisis in history,” and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with other organizations supported by tax dollars, are paying for hotels for immigrants’ stays instead of utilizing detention centers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sternly pushed back, accusing the majority of vilifying groups that serve vulnerable populations and abusing congressional power to intimidate those driven by missions to assist immigrants. He also criticized the majority’s witnesses, whom he said represented only one side of the issue.

“Today’s hearing are shameful abuses of congressional power to bully people for how they choose to exercise their religion and help their own name, ” said Thompson, who entered into the record a letter from more than 600 nonprofits opposed to the hearing.

In addition, a staffer showed a chart showing the committee’s Republicans who have voted in favor of NGO funding, including Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, August Pfluger, R-Texas and the committee chairman, Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Thompson criticized Green for not being present at his final full committee hearing. He announced his retirement announcement in June, effective Sunday.

To support their arguments, Republicans invited three witnesses critical of the Biden administration’s immigration approach and the role of non-governmental organizations. Their testimony, at times emotional and combative, prompted sharp responses from Democrats on the panel.

Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation, opened with an ardent statement related to violence against ICE officers.

The Oversight Project “works to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American people,” according to the Heritage Foundation’s website.

“The violence is getting out of control, and it is fueled by demagoguery of politicians, whether it is one of your members telling Axios that there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the public,” Howell said. “Another saying stability is important to prepare for violence, or even a member of this committee being arrested for forcibly impeding or interfering with federal officials.”

Thompson said he interpreted Howell’s statement to be outside of the scope of the hearing, and the issue was put to a vote. The committee decided 9-8 in favor of Howell’s continued testimony.

The other two witnesses were Ali Hopper, founder and president of GUARD Against Trafficking, an organization whose mission is to combat human trafficking, and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media, a U.S. conservative media company.

Hopper focused on the harms to children within the immigration system and questioned the accountability of nonprofit organizations, while Rosas echoed Republican concerns, arguing that while NGOs aim to help, they may unintentionally worsen situations.

The hearing took an unexpected turn late in the session when Thompson criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her recent online presence, referencing her controversial personal posts and past statements. He drew a sharp comparison between Noem’s actions and the deportation of vulnerable migrants, including a child with cancer.

Thompson, in a motion, wanted to subpoena Noem given the committee’s broader oversight efforts. Republicans quickly moved to table the motion in a non-debatable vote, which passed by a narrow margin.

Summing up the session, Guest said, “I am offended when people from the other side say we’re not being Christian. we’re not saying that all nonprofits are bad. Many of us support and give money and volunteer.”

“But, this hearing today is focused on those nonprofits which were government funded, which were used by the Biden-Harris administration to continue to move people across the border against the will of the public and without the authorization of Congress.”

Officials from California, New York, Kentucky and 20 other states allege the US administration acted unconstitutionally.

Two dozen states have sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump after the federal government froze $6.8bn in education funding.

On Monday, a group of 23 attorneys general and two governors filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island arguing that the decision to halt funds approved by the US Congress was “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional”.

The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children, recruitment and training of teachers, English proficiency learning, academic enrichment, and after-school and summer programmes.

The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

“This is not about Democrat or Republican – these funds were appropriated by Congress for the education of Kentucky’s children, and it’s my job to ensure we get them,” Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said in a statement.

“In Kentucky, $96 million in federal education funds are at risk. Our kids and our future depend on a strong education, and these funds are essential to making sure our kids succeed.”

While the government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the federal Department of Education notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programmes by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

Schools in Republican-led areas are particularly affected by the freeze in federal education grants.

Ninety-one of the 100 school districts that receive the most money per student from four frozen grant programmes are in Republican congressional districts, according to an analysis from New America, a left-leaning think tank. New America’s analysis used funding levels reported in 2022 in 46 states.

Republican officials have been among the educators criticising the grant freeze.

“I deeply believe in fiscal responsibility, which means evaluating the use of funds and seeking out efficiencies, but also means being responsible – releasing funds already approved by Congress and signed by President Trump,” said Georgia schools superintendent Richard Woods, an elected Republican.

“In Georgia, we’re getting ready to start the school year, so I call on federal funds to be released so we can ensure the success of our students.”

The Office of Management and Budget said the pause is part of a review to ensure funds are not used to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda”.

California officials on Monday announced that the state is suing the Trump administration for holding back an estimated $939 million in education funds from the state — and about $6.8 billion nationwide — that school districts had expected to begin receiving on July 1, calling the action “unconstitutional, unlawful and arbitrary.”

The funding, already appropriated by Congress, supports programs to help students who are learning English and also those from migrant families. The money also boosts teacher training, after-school programs and classroom technology. The impact on Los Angeles Unified — the nation’s second-largest school system — was estimated by Supt. Alberto Carvalho to be at least $110.2 million.

California and three other Democratic-led states are taking the lead on the lawsuit on behalf of 23 states with Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, which have Republican attorneys general. The suit was to be filed Monday in federal court in Rhode Island.

On Monday morning, Trump administration officials had not yet had an opportunity to review the lawsuit, but they have said no final decision has been made on the release of the withheld funds. The administration has cited alleged instances in which some of this money has been used in ways contrary to its policies. One example is the “separate and segregated academic instruction to new English learners,” according to a Trump administration official speaking not for attribution.

The Trump administration has tried to shut down — and often penalize — efforts to promote racial diversity, which it views as a form of discrimination and also has focused on controversies over LGBTQ+ issues. It also opposes what it views as advocacy and support for immigrants who lack legal status to live in the United States.

Although the held-back funds make up less than 1% of California’s education budget, they have an outsize cumulative effect. And they involve dollars that already have been accounted for in terms of staff hired and programs planned.

“With no rhyme or reason, the Trump Administration abruptly froze billions of dollars in education funding just weeks before the start of the school year,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “In doing so, it has threatened the existence of programs that provide critical after school and summer learning opportunities, that teach English to students, and that provide educational technology to our classrooms.”

The complaint argues that the Constitution does not give the executive branch power “to unilaterally refuse to spend appropriations that were passed by both houses of Congress and were signed into law.”

The lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Colorado and Rhode Island. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis spoke of the issue at a webinar last week featuring activists and public officials.

“With many teachers not knowing whether to report to duty — that are funded by these streams — this is a very last minute, opaque decision to withhold billions of dollars from our schools,” said Polis, whose state was expecting to receive an estimated $80 million on July 1. “Every single school district in the country is impacted to some degree by this freeze, risking services like counseling, supporting students, teacher training — all investments that help students succeed.”

“These are funds that schools have already budgeted for — because the funding was already committed — and schools now have to make impossible decisions here just in the 11th hour, days or weeks before people were scheduled to report to work.”

Funding freeze blamed for ‘chaos’

The held-back funds are tied to programs that, in some cases, have received these dollars for decades. Each year the U.S. Department of Education makes around 25% of the funds available to states on or about July 1. This permits school districts to begin or continue their efforts in these areas.

“The plaintiff states have complied with the funding conditions set forth under the law and have state plans that the Department of Education has already approved,” according to a statement from Bonta’s office.

This year, instead of distributing the funding, the U.S. Department of Education notified school districts and state education offices, on June 30, that it would not be “obligating funds” for the affected programs.

In its 84-word communication to states, the administration listed the programs by their federal designation, including Title III-A, which supports students who are learning English. Also listed was Title I-C, which aims to help the children of migrant workers overcome learning challenges. Both programs had all their funds withheld.

Other similarly curtailed programs provide training for teachers and administrators; enhance the use of technology for academic achievement and digital literacy, and fund before- and after-school and summer programs.

“This funding freeze has immediately thrown into chaos plans for the upcoming academic year,” according to Bonta’s office. “Local education agencies have approved budgets, developed staffing plans and signed contracts to provide vital educational services under these grants.”

Los Angeles Unified plans to carry affected programs using district reserves, but this money was already designated for other uses over the long term. Ultimately, hundreds of positions are funded by the estimated $110.2 million at stake.

The greatest impact would be seen once schools begin to open across the nation in August, but there have been immediate effects.

The Thomasville Community Resource Center in Georgia ended its summer program three weeks early, affecting more than 300 children in two counties. In Missouri, the Laclede Literacy Council laid off 16 of 17 staff members after adult education funds were held back.

Texas is estimated to be short approximately $660 million in expected education funding, according to the Texas Standard news site. The freeze particularly affects students learning English, nearly one in four Texas students. During the 2024-25 school year, Texas received more than $132 million from the federal government to support these students.

A rising mountain of litigation

The Trump administration action — and the litigation that has followed — represent the latest of many conflicts over funding and policy with California.

Last week, it was the Trump administration that initiated litigation, suing California for allowing transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity. The administration alleges that state officials are violating federal civil rights law by discriminating against women, a legal action that threatens billions of dollars in federal education funds.

In line with California law, state education policy specifically allows athletic participation based on a student’s gender identity.

In that litigation, the amount of funding that the Trump administration asserts to be at stake is staggering, with federal officials citing a figure of $44.3 billion in funding that California was allotted for the current year, including $3.8 billion not yet sent out — money that is immediately endangered.

“Potentially, all federal dollars to California public entities are at risk,” said a senior official with the U.S. Department of Education, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis.

Separately, the department has canceled or modified more than $1 billion in contracts and grants “based on the inclusion of illegal DEI or being out of alignment with Administration priorities,” said spokesperson Madi Biedermann, alluding to programs categorized as including “diversity, equity and inclusion” components.

Altogether, California is involved in more than two dozens lawsuits opposing Trump administration actions.

“Taken together with his other attacks on education, President Trump seems comfortable risking the academic success of a generation to further his own misguided political agenda,” Bonta said. “But as with so many of his other actions, this funding freeze is blatantly illegal, and we’re confident the court will agree.”

The lawsuits against the Trump administration have resulted in a multitude of restraining orders, but have not halted all major Trump actions related to education and other areas.

Trump has insisted that he wants to return education to the states and cut wasteful and ineffective spending. He also has tried to exert greater federal control in education over so-called culture-war issues.

Reporting from Sacramento — In his first week in office, Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a strong warning to cities and counties: He was coming for their road repair dollars if they didn’t meet state goals for new housing.

“If you’re not hitting your goals, I don’t know why you get the money,” Newsom said when he announced his budget plans in January.

Two months later, Newsom is setting aside plans to withhold state transportation dollars from local governments for four years. The move, which comes after fellow Democrats pushed back on the idea, is part of a larger acknowledgment that revamping how California plans for growth will be more arduous than the governor implied on the campaign trail.

Newsom made the announcement Monday when he unveiled a new bill that will be debated as part of the state budget. The legislation calls for $750 million in new funding for cities and counties to plan for increased housing production and then receive financial rewards as new building occurs. The money would begin flowing, according to the bill, in August.

“Our state’s affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream and the foundations of our economic well-being,” Newsom said in a release.

Gov. Gavin Newsom threatens to cut state funding from cities that don’t approve enough housing »

But the bill released Monday also laid out a lengthy timeline for the governor to implement more contentious parts of his housing agenda.

As a candidate, Newsom called for the building of 3.5 million new homes in the state by 2025, an amount that would more than quadruple the current rate of production.

For five decades, the state has required cities and counties to plan for housing production at a rate sufficient for all residents to live affordably. But the process hasn’t resulted in nearly enough homebuilding, especially for low-income residents, to meet demand.

Newsom pledged to reset housing supply goals so cities and counties would have to set aside more land for housing, concentrate production in existing urban areas to support climate change efforts and receive greater financial incentives to actually approve development. California’s tax system generally provides local governments with more tax revenue if they authorize hotel or commercial projects instead of housing.

Under Newsom’s new proposal, the state could take until 2023 — after the governor’s first term in office has ended — to put the new housing supply goals in place. When he unveiled his budget in January, Newsom also said he wanted to withhold money from the state’s recently approved increases to the gas tax and vehicle registration fees from communities that blocked housing. The bill says that wouldn’t happen until 2023 as well.

Giving new money to cities and counties before implementing new planning rules is an effort to show local governments that the governor sees their support as vital to meeting his housing goals, said Jason Elliott, Newsom’s chief deputy cabinet secretary.

“The best way to do that is to work with cities,” Elliott said.

When Newsom first announced his plans to tie transportation funding to housing goals, he didn’t provide a timeline. But some Democratic lawmakers made clear they weren’t fans.

At a budget committee hearing last month, Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) noted that voters upheld the gas tax hike at the ballot last year and said the governor shouldn’t consider restricting that money.

“We worked too hard on that and to all of a sudden have that used as a potential is disturbing to me,” Aguiar-Curry said.

It’s unclear if pushing off the plan for four years will lessen legislators’ concerns.

Sen. James Beall (D-San Jose), who authored the gas tax increase in 2017, said in a statement after the bill was released Monday that he remains against linking road construction funds to housing supply goals.

“Their use for any other purpose, such as to be used as leverage, is a violation of the trust of the voters and taxpayers,” Beall said.

[email protected]

@dillonliam

The Trump administration has lifted a freeze on federal funds for HIV prevention and surveillance programs, officials said, following an outcry from HIV prevention organizations, health experts and Democrats in Congress.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health received notice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday that it had been awarded nearly $20 million for HIV prevention for the 12-month period that began June 1 — an increase of $338,019 from the previous year.

“Let’s be clear — the Trump administration’s move to freeze HIV prevention funding was reckless, illegal and put lives at risk,” said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) in a statement. “I’m relieved the CDC finally did the right thing — but this never should have happened.”

The CDC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Friedman and other advocates for HIV prevention funding sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, warning that proposed cuts to these programs would reverse years of progress combating the disease and cause spikes in new cases — especially in California and among the LGBTQ+ community.

The letter cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, suggesting the cuts could lead to 143,000 additional HIV infections nationwide and 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years.

Los Angeles County, which stood to lose nearly $20 million in annual federal HIV prevention funding, was looking at terminating contracts with 39 providers. Experts said the dissolution of that network could result in as many as 650 new cases per year — pushing the total number of new infections per year in the county to roughly 2,000.

“Public Health is grateful for the support and advocacy from the Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles County Congressional delegation, and all of our community based providers in pushing CDC to restore this Congressionally approved funding,” a spokeswoman for the county’s health department said.

“Looking forward, it is important to note that the President’s FY26 budget proposes to eliminate this funding entirely, and we urge our federal partners to support this critical lifesaving funding,” she said.

In a high-stakes gamble, Wall Street hedge funds are offering to buy claims that insurers may have against Southern California Edison if the utility is found liable for causing the devastating Eaton fire in Altadena.

The solicitations are legal, but have alarmed California state officials — who loathe the idea of investors profiting from a disaster that claimed 18 lives and destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures.

“I think everyone in this room looks at a catastrophe, like what happened in Southern California, and our natural instincts are to say, ‘What can we do to help?’” Tom Welsh, the chief executive of the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the state’s wildfire fund, said at a recent public meeting. “There are other actors in the environment who look at that situation in Southern California and ask instead, “What can I do to profit?’”

The investors are aiming to buy so-called subrogation claims from insurance companies. These are claims that insurers would file against Edison seeking reimbursement for the money they paid to their policyholders for fire damages if it’s determined the utility’s equipment triggered the wildfire that began Jan. 7.

For the insurers, selling the claims — even at a steep discount — allows them to get at least some reimbursement for the money they’ve paid out. For the hedge funds buying the claims, it’s a gamble that could pay big if Edison is found liable and they can cash in those claims for much more than they paid.

More than $17 billion in insurance claims for the Eaton and Palisades fires has been paid out so far, according to the California Department of Insurance.

State officials say California has a stake in the trading of fire-related subrogation claims, which was previously reported by Bloomberg, because of the potential effect on the state’s wildfire fund.

That fund, which currently has about $21 billion, would be used to cover most of the costs of damage claims should Edison be found liable for starting the Eaton blaze. While the cause is still under investigation, a leading theory is that a decommissioned transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze, Edison has said.

The wildfire fund is managed by a state board called the Catastrophe Response Council. At its last meeting in May, Welsh told the board that solicitations from New York brokers and investment firms began landing in his email inbox in March.

Ronald Ryder at Oppenheimer & Co., a New York investment firm, told Welsh in an email on April 15 that his company was currently trading the subrogation claims. Ryder wrote that there had already been 10 transactions worth more than $1 billion in recovery rights for the Eaton fire as well as the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades, where the city of Los Angeles faces potential liability.

In another email, Ryder told Welsh that investors were bidding 47 cents on the dollar for the claims related to the Eaton fire. For the Palisades fire, the bidding was 5 cents on the dollar, Ryder wrote.

Welsh warned the council that “speculative investors” might hold onto the Eaton claims and “really try to get outsized profits by demanding settlements from Edison of 75, 80, 85 cents on the dollar.”

If that were to happen, the wildfire fund could pay out “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars” more than if the claims were settled directly by the insurers, he said.

“That would really, very negatively impact the durability of the wildfire fund,” Welsh said.

Oppenheimer declined to comment, and Ryder didn’t respond to messages.

Under a 2019 state law, the state wildfire fund would be expected to reimburse Edison for most of the insurers’ payments to policyholders if its electrical equipment is found to have started the Eaton fire. The Palisades fire, which occurred in territory serviced by the L.A. Department of Water and Power, isn’t covered by the state fund.

California lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks catastrophic wildfires.

The possibility of large settlements paid out by the wildfire fund has led to dozens of lawsuits against Edison, even before the cause of the fire has been determined.

If found responsible for the fire, Edison would negotiate settlements with the insurers, as well as with homeowners and others who have filed lawsuits, saying they’ve been harmed. The utility would then ask the state wildfire fund to cover those amounts.

If the insurers have sold their claims, however, the investors who bought them would reap the returns. Attorneys who handle the complex transactions would also get a cut and “generally take a very high percentage off the top,” Paul Rosenstiel, a catastrophe council member, said at last month’s meeting.

Already, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders are worried that the $21-billion wildfire fund could be depleted by damage claims from the Eaton fire.

Welsh recounted how a hedge fund had profited in 2019 by buying insurers’ subrogation claims against PG&E after its transmission line was found to have started the 2018 Camp fire that killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise. Bloomberg reported at the time that hedge fund Baupost Group made a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars by buying the claims at 35 cents on the dollar and later getting a settlement valued at much more.

To stop hedge funds from profiting on the claims, Welsh said, the earthquake authority is now considering changing its claim administration procedures to make the settlements less lucrative for those investors.

One possible change being discussed, according to authority staff, would require a utility that ignited a wildfire to prioritize settling the claims of victims and insurers who have not sold their subrogation rights before those claims owned by hedge funds.

June 20 (UPI) — A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump‘s attempt to make federal transportation funding contingent on state compliance with his immigration policies.

In his ruling Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, R.I., said not only does the Department of Transportation lack the authority to tie grant funding to immigration enforcement, but the directive also usurps Congress’ power of the purse while being “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes,” the President Barack Obama appointee said in his brief ruling.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 20 state attorneys general challenging an April 24 directive sent to all Department of Transportation funding receipts, stating they must comply with an Immigration Enforcement Condition when applying for future grants.

The letter specifies that as recipients, they have “entered into legally enforceable agreements with the United States Government and are obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations,” particularly those relating to immigration enforcement and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT financial assistance,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s letter states.

“Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding from DOT.”

The 20 Democrat-led states filed their lawsuit against the directive in May, arguing the Department of Transportation has no authority to tie grants to federal civil immigration enforcement, as the two are unrelated.

In his ruling, McConnell agreed with the plaintiffs.

“The IEC, backed by the Duffy Directive, is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars — grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky and on the rails,” he said.

“[T]he IEC is not at all reasonably related to the transportation funding program grants.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling while chastising Trump for “threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda.

“It’s immoral — and more importantly, illegal,” the Democrat said. “I’m glad the District Court agrees, blocking the President’s latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has led a crackdown on immigration, with many of his policies being challenged in court.

Late Thursday, an appeals court handed Trump a victory in the battle, permitting California National Guard troops to remain deployed on Los Angeles streets amid protests against his immigration policies.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to continue to fight what he called “President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers.”

In a sprawling county where transit lines are sometimes miles apart, transit leaders’ plans for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics rely on a robust fleet of buses to get people to and from venues and avoid a traffic meltdown.

The plan hinges on a $2-billion ask of the Trump administration to lease 2,700 buses to join Metro’s fleet of roughly 2,400, traveling on a network of designated lanes to get from venue to venue. But with roughly three years to go until opening day, the plan faces several challenges over funding and time.

The federal government has yet to respond to the city’s request. And Metro’s commitment to lease clean energy buses could pose supply problems and challenges around charging infrastructure. Operators would also need to be trained under state regulations and provided housing through the Games.

“Three years might seem like a lot of time to many of us, but in municipal time, three years is like the blink of an eye. That’s our greatest challenge.” said Daniel Rodman, a member of the city of L.A.’s office of major events, at a recent UCLA transit forum. “Father Time is coming.”

The Games will be scattered in places across the region including Alamitos Beach in Long Beach, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Santa Anita Park in Arcadia, the L.A. Coliseum and Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and outside the county in Anaheim and all the way to northern San Diego County. Official watch parties and fan gatherings will also occur throughout the metropolis. Since these and many of the venues aren’t directly accessible by rail, the bus system will be key to the city’s push for “transit first” — a motto that city leaders have adopted since Mayor Karen Bass’ previous messaging around a “car-free Olympics.”

The bus system will be key to the city’s push for “transit first.”

(Gabriella Angotti-Jones / Los Angeles Times)

Outside the bus system, several transit projects in the works are expected to ease some of the traffic burden, including the extension for the Metro D Line, also known as the Purple Line, which Metro has slated for completion before the Olympics, and the opening of the automated people mover train at Los Angeles International Airport, which will offer an alternative to driving to the airport. There are also proposals for water taxi use from San Pedro to Long Beach, where multiple events will be held, to offer an alternative to the Vincent Thomas and Long Beach International Gateway bridges.

The big question is whether enough people in a famously auto-bound city will be willing to take public transit. Leaders believe that tourists are likely to take advantage of the system, and hope more Angelenos will too.

“All of our international visitors know how to ride public transportation — it’s second nature for our people coming from other countries,” county Supervisor and Metro board Chair Janice Hahn said at a recent UCLA forum, pointing to the Paris Olympics and the city’s long use of public transit. “It’s the Angelenos that we’re still trying to attract. So I’m thinking the legacy will be a good experience on a bus or a train that could translate after the Olympics to people riding Metro.”

Los Angeles leaders warned of major traffic jams ahead of the 1984 Olympics. Then-Councilmember Pat Russell advised residents to leave the city and take a vacation, and many Angelenos rented out their homes to visitors. Fears loomed that if the city couldn’t nail down a transit plan, the experience would be a disaster and spectators would encounter a fate similar to the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, N.Y., where thousands of people were stranded in below-freezing temperatures after the shuttle bus system became overloaded, according to Times archival reports.

“Of all the problems we’re faced with these Olympics Games, transportation is the surest and most inevitable mess unless we get the cooperation and support of people to adjust their use of their personal vehicles,” Capt. Ken Rude, the head of California Highway Patrol’s Olympic planning unit, told The Times a year before the 1984 Games. Months earlier, he warned that traffic jams could be so bad that people would be forced to abandon their cars on freeways.

Traffic on the 110 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles during the 1984 Summer Olympics.

(Michael Montfort / Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images)

In the end, catastrophe was avoided. The plan 40 years ago was similar to today’s — build a robust bus system to shuttle Olympics fans, athletes and leaders throughout the county.

Traffic was manageable, whether due to transit plans that relied on an additional 550 buses to assist a fleet of 2,200, temporarily turned some streets one-way and limited deliveries to certain hours, or an exodus of residents as people left the area ahead of the Games, in part due to the dire predictions of complete gridlock.

But fast-forward, Los Angeles’ population has grown from nearly 8 million in 1984 to 9.7 million today, and the region is expecting millions more spectators than it did during the last Games. Estimates for the overall number of expected visitors are still vague, but planners have anticipated as many as 9 million more ticket holders than in the 1984 Olympics.

“There’s a mountain to be moved and if you move it one year, it’s a lot harder than in three years,” said Juane Matute, deputy director of UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. “The buses are hard enough to get, but all of these policy and regulatory changes may be hard as well.”

Metro has received leasing commitments for roughly 650 buses so far. Vehicles aside, it will take time to get bus operators properly trained, tested and certified to operate public transit in the state, Matute said. An estimated 6,000 additional bus operators would be needed to drive people throughout the Games. Metro has said that those operators are expected to be provided through transit agencies loaning the buses.

In the latest state budget proposal, $17.6 million from the state’s highway fund would go toward Olympics and Paralympics planning, including Metro’s Games Route Network, which would designate a series of roads for travel by athletes, media members, officials, the International Olympics Committee, spectators and workers. But city and Metro leaders have continued to raise concerns over the funding gap, especially since the additional buses and priority lanes network in 2028 won’t be a permanent fixture to Los Angeles, and as the agency grapples with budget challenges as it faces a $2.3-billion deficit by 2030.

A cycle rickshaw driver, of Deke’s Muscled Cabs, transports a passenger, possibly an athlete, during the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

(Michael Montfort / Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images)

Olympics planners, on the other hand, are confident that transportation will be successful.

“L.A. has invested unto itself a lot in infrastructure here and transportation infrastructure — far more than it did in ‘84,” LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman said after a three-day visit from the International Olympic Committee.

“We feel very confident that it’ll be a different version of the success we had in ‘84 in terms of ingress and egress and access and experience when it comes to transportation.”

Times staff writer Thuc Nhi Nguyen contributed to this report.

It’s over: US president no desire to make up with Musk, who dredged up allegations of links to sex offender Epstein.

United States President Donald Trump has warned billionaire former ally Elon Musk against funding Democratic candidates in the country’s 2026 midterm elections as the pair’s volcanic break-up continued to play out on the world stage.

“He’ll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,” Trump told US network NBC News in an interview published Saturday, without spelling out what the repercussions might be for the tech mogul, whose businesses benefit from lucrative US federal contracts.

Trump aides, various Republicans, and key wealthy donors to the GOP  have urged the two to temper the bitter feud and make peace, fearing irreparable political and economic fallout.

But, asked whether he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, “I would assume so, yeah”.

The interview featured Trump’s most extensive comments yet on the spectacular bust-up that saw Musk criticising his signature tax and spending bill as an “abomination”, tensions escalating after he went on to highlight one-time links between the president and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

By Saturday morning, Musk had deleted his “big bomb” allegation that Trump featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.

“That is the real reason they have not been made public,” he said in Thursday’s post on X.

The Trump administration has acknowledged it is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, videos, and investigative material that his “MAGA” movement says will unmask public figures complicit in Epstein’s crimes.

Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing, but he had a long and well-publicised friendship with Epstein.

Trump has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the US Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein trafficked underage girls for sex.

Just last week, Trump had given Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Vice President JD Vance said Musk was making a “huge mistake” going after Trump, though he also tried to downplay his attacks as the frustrations of an “emotional guy”.

“I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that’s not possible now because he’s gone so nuclear,” he said in the interview with comedian Theo Von, released Friday.

Trump also told NBC that it was the Department of Justice, rather than he, that had decided to return Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US, where he faces charges of transporting undocumented migrants inside the country.

Trump added that he had not spoken to El Salvador President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia’s return.

June 3 (UPI) — The British government threatened to sue Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich to ensure the proceeds from his sale of Chelsea Football Club benefit aid efforts in Ukraine.

The government seeks to direct the $3.4 billion Abramavoch received when he sold the Premier League club in March 2022 to funds to humanitarian aid.

“The Government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion,” Foreign Secretary David Lammy and British Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in a joint statement.

Abramovich, however, has stated he would like the proceeds to benefit “all victims of the war in Ukraine,” including those in Russia.

He has retained legal control of the funds have remained frozen in a British bank account since the sale as Abramovich was sanctioned in February 2022 following Russia and the government said Tuesday it would take legal action to gain control of where the funds are sent.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr. Abramovich so far,” Lammy and Reeves said. “While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.”

Abramovich was granted a special license to sell Chelsea, as long as he could prove he would not benefit financially from the transaction.

He sold the team to an American-led group two months later for over $3.3 billion, and those proceeds have since remained frozen in a British bank. U.K. officials released a statement Monday that said it’s “fully prepared” to take legal action against Abramovich.

The lawsuit came three days after a similar case by NPR, which also saw its funds cut.

PBS has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network.

In its lawsuit filed on Friday, PBS relied on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” because of his claim that PBS’s news coverage is biassed against conservatives.

“PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,” lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in US District Court in Washington, DC. “But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS’s programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.”

It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Trump’s orders.

PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump’s order is an “existential threat” to the station, the lawsuit said.

A PBS spokesman said that “after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television’s editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations”.

‘Lawful authority’

Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325m this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations.

The White House deputy press secretary, Harrison Fields, said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” Fields said. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22 percent of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS’s budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government.

Interrupting ‘a rich tapestry of programming’

Trump’s order “would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans”, Chen wrote.

PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a $78m grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children’s shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow.

For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the Lakeland Learns education programme and Lakeland News, described in the lawsuit as the only television programme in the region providing local news, weather and sports.

Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.

The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are struggling for their lives. The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to cut federal funding to California if the state continues allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.

Trump blasted Gov. Gavin Newsom in an early morning post on Truth Social saying the state under his leadership “continues to ILLEGALLY allow MEN TO PLAY IN WOMEN’S SPORTS.”

“I will speak to him today to find out which way he wants to go???” Trump said of Newsom. “In the meantime I am ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow the transitioned person to compete in the State Finals. This is a totally ridiculous situation!!!”

The president’s post appeared to reference a California high school junior who won the women’s long jump and triple jump during the California Interscholastic Federation Southern Section Masters Meet over the weekend.

California is the second state to enter Trump’s cross-hairs over transgender athletes participation in youth sports. Last month, Trump began the process of stripping Maine of federal education dollars in a battle over the issue between the president and Maine Gov. Janet Mills. The dispute immediately landed in court.

Unlike the governor of Maine, Newsom recently said it was “deeply unfair” for people born as biological men to compete in women’s sports. He has not responded to Trump’s post.

When asked at a press conference in April if California should adopt a law restricting transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, the governor said he’s open to the discussion.

“You’re talking about a very small number of people, a very small number of athletes, and my responsibility is to address the pressing issues of our time,” Newsom said, before adding that the conversation has been weaponized by conservatives.

“And to the extent that someone could find that right balance, I would embrace those conversations and the dignity that hopefully presents themselves in that conversation, meaning the humanity around that conversation, not the politics around that conversation.”

This isn’t the first time Trump has threatened to cut funding, particularly education dollars, to California.

In an April letter to Newsom, the Trump-appointed head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conditioned its aid to abiding by Trump directives — and cited a federal investigation into a state law that prohibits schools from automatically notifying families about student gender-identity changes and shields teachers from retaliation for supporting transgender student rights.

California also joined other states in April when it defied a Trump administration order to certify that the state’s 1,000 school districts have ended all diversity, equity and inclusion programs. That Trump order, too, arrived with federal threats to cut billions of dollars in education funding if the state did not comply.

One uncertainty in Trump’s latest social media post was whether he was referring to education funding alone or additional federal support for California — which could include, for example, disaster relief, food aid for the poor and dollars to support low-income housing.

California has long sent more money to Washington, D.C. in federal tax revenue than it receives in federal support, according to Newsom. Regardless, the funding that California relies on is significant.

While it’s difficult to calculate the total dollar amount California receives from the federal government in education funding, some tallies have put the annual figure at $16.3 billion — or about $2,750 per K-12 student. That money includes funding for school meals, students with disabilities and early education Head Start programs.

The state also receives more than $2.1 billion in Title I grants to counteract the effects of poverty — more than any other state — with about $417 million provided to Los Angeles Unified, according to the California Department of Education.

Two tribal nations filed a lawsuit saying that the federal government used the trust fund money of tribes to pay for boarding schools where generations of Native children were systematically abused.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Wichita Tribe and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California said that by the U.S. government’s own admission, the schools were funded using money raised by forcing tribal nations into treaties to cede their lands. That money was to be held in trust for the collective benefit of tribes.

“The United States Government, the trustee over Native children’s education and these funds, has never accounted for the funds that it took, or detailed how, or even whether, those funds were ultimately expended. It has failed to identify any funds that remain,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. A spokesperson for the Interior declined to comment on pending litigation.

In 2022, the Department of the Interior, under the direction of Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to run the agency, released a scathing report on the legacy of the boarding school era, in which Native children were stolen from their homes, forced to assimilate, and in many cases physically, sexually and mentally abused. Countless children died at the schools, many of whom were buried in unmarked graves at the institutions.

That report detailed the U.S. government’s intentions of using the boarding schools as a way to both strip Native children of their culture and dispossess their tribal nations of land.

The tribes are asking the court to make the U.S. account for the estimated $23.3 billion it appropriated for the boarding school program, detail how that money was invested, and list the remaining funds that were taken by the U.S. and allocated for the education of Native children.

Last year, President Biden issued a formal apology for the government’s boarding school policy, calling it “a sin on our soul” and “one of the most horrific chapters” in American history. But in April, the administration of President Trump cut $1.6 million from projects meant to capture and digitize stories of boarding school survivors.

Brewer writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump brand has been used to hawk cryptocurrencies, Bibles, steaks and guitars. Now the US president’s media company is laying the groundwork to sell investment funds.

Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which is majority owned by Donald Trump, plans to sell offerings tied to his agenda.

The parent of the Truth Social platform, where the president is also a prominent poster, has announced plans for and trademarked the names of a group of financial products under the Truth.Fi banner—investments that will potentially benefit from the president’s policies with bets on energy, crypto and domestic manufacturing. The proposed products include exchange-traded funds, or portfolios that trade like stocks that can be purchased through most brokers.

Details on the products’ structures and strategies are still scarce. ETFs are subject to approval by regulators, and no public filings are available yet. Yet the brand-building has already begun. So have the arguments. Critics see a sitting US president having a financial stake in the success of funds that are associated with his brand and his politics, built on strategies that he can influence from the White House.

“These transactions fly in the face of government ethics standards,” says Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business. “When you’re president, the assumption is that 100% of your energy is devoted to serving the country—not monetizing your public platform.”

The administration says the president is walled off. “President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment.

US presidents aren’t required under federal law to divest assets, but past leaders have done so or used blind trusts to avoid perceived conflicts. Trump, however, has maintained financial exposure through family-controlled structures. Right before taking office again, he transferred about $4 billion worth of Trump Media shares to a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr. But the arrangement is not a blind trust with independent oversight.

The concern among ethics experts isn’t only the ownership. It’s the overlap between policy and potential monetary benefit. The Truth.Fi funds could rise and fall in line with decisions the president makes in office. Protectionist policies aimed at various sectors and countries could help the proposed Truth.Fi Made in America ETF, which is set to bet on reshoring. Deregulatory moves in favor of crypto may boost a Bitcoin-themed ETF. And so on.

The crypto angle is a familiar one. Trump and his family have already profited from the digital-asset boom, hyping up a cryptocurrency bearing his name. Such so-called memecoins have no underlying value as investments, but creators of Trump’s coin recently held a promotion offering top holders a private dinner with the president. A company affiliated with the Trump Organization owns a large chunk of the Trump memecoins. Another Trump family-linked company, World Liberty Financial, has also issued its own cryptocurrencies, including a dollar-linked digital token called a stablecoin. World Liberty recently announced the coin would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between a state-backed Abu Dhabi company and the overseas crypto exchange Binance. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have said the stablecoin offers “opportunities for unprecedented corruption” because the Trump family can benefit financially from the use of its product.

In its ETF announcement, Trump Media said the proposed products, which include portfolios known as separately managed accounts in addition to ETFs, offer a conservative alternative to “woke” investing. It’s a niche currently occupied by funds including the Point Bridge America First ETF and the God Bless America ETF, among others. Both have gathered only modest assets, as have left-leaning ETFs, thanks in part to a saturated ETF market that’s making life harder for newbie issuers.

There are already about 60 ETFs based on Bitcoin, a tally that’s grown by at least 22 this year. In addition, there are more than 60 funds tied to energy, including coal, and at least three from issuers including Tema and BlackRock Inc.’s iShares based on reshoring and manufacturing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Trump Media “will be depending on its brand recognition to set its ETFs apart among a crowd of competing products,” says Roxanna Islam, head of sector and industry research at ETF shop TMX VettaFi. “A strong political following may help gather initial support, but in the long run, flows will ultimately depend on ETF basics like fees and performance.”

The company has announced plans to seed the funds with as much as $250 million. It’s working with trading platform Crypto.com and investment firm Yorkville Advisors to help run the funds. Still, its biggest unrivaled asset is Trump himself. Even if he’s not an explicit spokesperson, almost everything he does makes him a potential ad for the company. “What a competing fund doesn’t have is a person who’s in the news literally every day who can then talk about these things,” says Philip Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Hal Lambert, who runs the MAGA ETF and has raised money for Trump’s presidential runs, dismisses concerns about conflicts. For one, the president’s views on issues such as domestic manufacturing have been publicly known for decades. There are more direct ways to have a seat at the table than buying an ETF, he says; people can give money to campaigns or political action committees, for instance. “I just don’t know that that stuff would work on him,” Lambert says. “Trump does what he wants to do.”

Hajric writes for Bloomberg

Arab leaders have urged the international community to fund their plan to rebuild the Gaza Strip after United States President Donald Trump reiterated a proposal to take over the Palestinian territory.

An Arab League summit held on Saturday in Baghdad said in its final statement that it urged “countries and international and regional financial institutions to provide prompt financial support” to back its Gaza reconstruction plan.

“This genocide [in Gaza] has reached a level of ugliness unparalleled in all conflicts in history,” Iraq’s Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said in his opening speech at the 34th Arab Summit, which was dominated by Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

He said Iraq backed the creation of an “Arab fund to support reconstruction efforts”, adding that Iraq will contribute $20m towards the fund and another $20m for Lebanon, which has also been in conflict with Israel.

The Iraqi prime minister said Baghdad rejects “the forced displacement of Palestinians”, calling for an end to “the massacres in Gaza, the attacks on the West Bank and the occupied territories”.

“We have called, and continue to call, for serious and responsible Arab action to save Gaza and reactivate the UNRWA,” he said, referring to the UN body for Palestinian aid.

Saturday’s talks in the Iraqi capital came only a day after Trump completed his Middle East tour, triggering hopes of a ceasefire and the renewal of aid delivery to Gaza.

‘Carnage unfolding in Gaza’

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez – who have sharply criticised Israel’s genocide in Gaza – were guests at the summit.

“We need a permanent ceasefire now, the unconditional release of the hostages now, and the free flow of humanitarian aid ending the blockade now,” Guterres said.

Spain’s Sanchez said the humanitarian crisis in Gaza must end “immediately and without delay”.

“Palestine and Spain are working on a new draft to be presented to the United Nations, where we are demanding Israel to end the unjust humanitarian siege laid to Gaza and to allow for the unconditional delivery of relief aid into Gaza”, he said.

He also said there must be “more pressure on Israel to end the carnage unfolding in Gaza by all the conceivable means, namely the tools available under the international law.”

“And here, I would like to announce that Spain will present a proposal to the General Assembly for the International Criminal Court to examine Israel’s compliance with the delivery of relief aid into Gaza,” the Spanish prime minister added.

In March, Israel ended a ceasefire reached with Hamas in January, renewing deadly attacks across Gaza and forcing a blockade of food and other essential items. In recent days, Israel has intensified its offensive, as tens of thousands of Palestinians are forced to starve.

At a preparatory meeting of the Arab League summit, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said they will try to endorse decisions that were made at their meeting in Cairo in March to support Gaza’s reconstruction as an alternative to Trump’s widely condemned proposal to take over the enclave.

During his visit to Qatar, Trump on Thursday reiterated that he wanted the US to “take” Gaza and turn it into a “freedom zone”. Earlier this year, he caused an uproar by declaring that the US would turn Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East”, prompting Arab leaders to come up with a plan to rebuild the territory, at a summit in Cairo.

The Arab plan for Gaza proposes rebuilding the Palestinian enclave without displacing its 2.4 million residents.

Besides Gaza, Arab officials also discussed Syria, which only six months ago entered a new chapter in its history after the fall of longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad.

Earlier this week, Trump in Riyadh met Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose group spearheaded the offensive that toppled al-Assad last December. Prior to their meeting, he also announced that US sanctions on Syria will be lifted in a huge boost to the government in Damascus.

Al-Sharaa, who was imprisoned for years in Iraq on charges of belonging to al-Qaeda following the 2003 US-led invasion, however, missed Baghdad’s summit after several powerful Iraqi politicians voiced opposition to his visit. The Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani represented Damascus instead.

Saturday’s summit also came amid Iran’s ongoing nuclear talks with the US. Trump has pursued diplomacy with Iran as he seeks to stave off a threatened military strike by Israel on Iran, a desire shared by many of the region’s leaders.

On Thursday, Trump said a deal was “getting close”, but by Friday, he was warning that “something bad is going to happen” if the Iranians do not move fast.

Iraq has only recently regained a semblance of normalcy after decades of devastating conflict and turmoil, and its leaders view the summit as an opportunity to project an image of stability.

Reporting from Baghdad, Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed said the summit was “very crucial” for Iraq.

“This is the first time the summit has been held in Iraq since 2012 and Iraq takes it as a credit to regain its rule as a player to bridge the gap between member states of the Arab League,” he said.

NEW YORK — Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has agreed to pay a $329,794 fine to settle an ethics board’s complaint that he misspent public funds on his security detail during his brief, failed run for U.S. president.

The deal, announced Wednesday by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, is the costliest repayment order in the ethics board’s history. But it allows de Blasio to avoid an even steeper penalty of $475,000 that was previously imposed, a reduction the board said came in light of the former mayor’s “financial situation.”

In exchange, de Blasio agreed to drop his appeal of the board’s finding. And for the first time, he admitted that he received written warning that his out-of-state security expenses could not legally be covered by city taxpayers.

“In contradiction of the written guidance I received from the Board, I did not reimburse the City for these expenses,” de Blasio wrote in the settlement, adding: “I made a mistake and I deeply regret it.”

The payments concern the $319,794.20 in travel-related expenses — including airfare, lodging, meals — that de Blasio’s security detail incurred while accompanying him on trips across the country during his presidential campaign in 2019. He will also pay a $10,000 fine.

The campaign elicited a mix of mockery and grousing by city residents, who accused the Democrat of abandoning his duties as second-term mayor for the national spotlight. It was suspended within four months.

Under the agreement, de Blasio must pay $100,000 immediately, followed by quarterly installments of nearly $15,000 for the next four years. If he misses a payment, he will be deemed in default and ordered to pay the full $475,000.

The funds will eventually make their way back into the city treasury, according to a spokesperson for the Conflicts of Interest Board.

An attorney for de Blasio, Andrew G. Celli Jr., declined to comment on the settlement.

De Blasio had previously argued that forcing him to cover the cost of his security detail’s travel violated his 1st Amendment rights by creating an “unequal burden” between wealthy candidates and career public servants.

Since leaving office in 2021, de Blasio has worked as a lecturer at multiple universities, most recently the University of Michigan, and delivered paid speeches in Italy.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.