grants

Nov. 8 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump has exempted Hungary from sanctions over the nation’s purchase of Russian gas and oil for one year after meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Trump is a close ally of the far-right populist and authoritarian, who came into power in 1998 but was out of office from 2002 to 2010.

On Friday at the White House, Trump said he was considering the exemption because “it’s very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas.”

After the meeting, Orban posted on X with a video: “Decision reached: President Donald Trump has guaranteed full sanction exemptions for the TurkStream and Friendship pipelines, allowing Hungary to continue providing families with the lowest energy prices in Europe. Thank you, Mr. President!”

The BBC confirmed the exemption was for one year.

Hungary’s dependence on Russian crude oil was 61% before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, then rose to 86% in 2024 and 92% this year.

On Oct. 22, the U.S. added sanctions against Russia, including blacklisting two of Russia’s largest oil companies: Open Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company and Lukoil OAO.

Russia has been the world’s third-largest oil exporter, generating $120 billion in 2024 behind No. 1 Saudi Arabia at $225 billion and No. 2 Canada. $121billion. The United States is No. 4 at $117 billion.

Extensive sanctions were imposed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine in February 2022. Initially, they were imposed in March 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea.

The Trump administration is attempting to use tariffs to halt third-country access, including by India.

But Trump said he understands Hungary’s situation of being a landlocked nation with limited access to gas and oil.

The U.S. State Department said Hungary has agreed to purchase U.S. liquefied gas worth about $600 million, NBC News reported.

Also, Hungary agreed to purchase American nuclear fuel, which it currently buys from Russia.

Despite similar policies as Trump, Orban said the pipelines are not “ideological” or “political” and instead a “physical reality.”

Orban had blamed U.S. President Joe Biden for “politically motivated sanctions,” including his top aid Antal Rogaan with allegations of corruption.

“Now we are quite a good position to open up a new chapter – let’s say a golden age – between the United States and Hungary,” Orban said.

Trump has used the term “golden age of America,” declaring it began with his second inauguration on Jan. 20.

The exemption was criticized by an analyst.

“The U.S. decision is a terrible and unnecessary mistake that will allow over 1 billion euros [$1.2 billion] to flow into the Kremlin’s war chest,” Isaac Levi, with the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told CNN. “By carving out special treatment for Hungary, Washington is telling other buyers that they can keep handling Russian oil and still expect to be let off the hook.”

Levi noted the Czech Republic is another country with a port that manages without Russian crude oil and has lower fuel prices at the pump than Hungary.

“This clearly shows that the oil flows that continue to finance Putin’s war in Ukraine are entirely unnecessary,” he said.

Trump said he is “very disturbed” by other European countries that still buy Russian commodities despite not being landlocked.

Hungary and neighboring Slovakia are the only EU countries still getting Russian oil from the Druzhba pipeline.

EU countries’ gas comes via Turkey through the TurkStream pipeline. Russia’s share of EU gas imports fell from 40% pre-invasion to 11% in 2024.

But Slovakia is “almost 100% dependent” on Russian crude oil, according to a report from the Center for Research and Energy and Clean Air and the Center for the Study of Democracy.

The European Commission granted an exemption to Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic – three countries heavily reliant on Russian imports – for time to reduce reliance.

Other nations don’t have close relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

For other products, Trump has imposed a baseline 15% tariff as part of a trade agreement with the European Union.

That includes Hungary’s car industry.

On Oct. 21, Trump canceled his planned summit with Putin in Budapest, Hungary, after Putin’s demands on ending the war in Ukraine remained.

State officials on the front lines of preparing for natural disasters and responding to emergencies say severe cuts to federal security grants, restrictions on money intended for readiness and funding delays tied to litigation are posing a growing risk to their ability to respond to crises.

It’s all causing confusion, frustration and concern. The federal government shutdown isn’t helping.

“Every day we remain in this grant purgatory reduces the time available to responsibly and effectively spend these critical funds,” said Kiele Amundson, communications director at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

The uncertainty has led some emergency management agencies to hold off on filling vacant positions and make rushed decisions on important training and purchases.

Experts say the developments complicate state-led emergency efforts, undermining the Republican administration’s stated goals of shifting more responsibility to states and local governments for disaster response.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Homeland Security said the new requirements were necessary because of “recent population shifts” and that changes to security grants were made “to be responsive to new and urgent threats facing our nation.”

A new wrinkle tied to immigration raids

Several DHS and FEMA grants help states, tribes and territories prepare for climate disasters and deter a variety of threats. The money pays for salaries and training, and such things as vehicles, communications equipment and software.

State emergency managers say that money has become increasingly important because the range of threats they must prepare for is expanding, including pandemics and cyberattacks.

FEMA, a part of DHS, divided a $320 million Emergency Management Performance Grant among states on Sept. 29. But the next day, it told states the money was on hold until they submitted new population counts. The directive demanded that they omit people “removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States” and to explain their methodology.

The amount of money distributed to the states is based on U.S. census population data. The new requirement forcing states to submit revised counts “is something we have never seen before,” said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, a group representing emergency managers. “It’s certainly not the responsibility of emergency management to certify population.”

With no guidance on how to calculate the numbers, Hawaii’s Amundson said staff scrambled to gather data from the 2020 census and other sources, then subtracted he number of “noncitizens” based on estimates from an advocacy group.

They are not sure the methodology will be accepted. But with their FEMA contacts furloughed and the grant portal down during the federal shutdown, they cannot find out. Other states said they were assessing the request or awaiting further guidance.

In its statement, DHS said FEMA needs to be certain of its funding levels before awarding grant money, and that includes updates to a state’s population due to deportations.

Experts said delays caused by the request could most affect local governments and agencies that receive grant money passed down by states because their budgets and staffs are smaller. At the same time, FEMA also reduced the time frame that recipients have to spend the money, from three years to one. That could prevent agencies from taking on longer-term projects.

Bryan Koon, president and CEO of the consulting firm IEM and a former Florida emergency management chief, said state governments and local agencies need time to adjust their budgets to any kind of changes.

“An interruption in those services could place American lives in jeopardy,” he said.

Grant programs tied up by litigation

In another move that has caused uncertainty, FEMA in September drastically cut some states’ allocations from another source of funding. The $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program is supposed to be based on assessed risks, and states pass most of the money to police and fire departments.

New York received $100 million less than it expected, a 79% reduction, while Illinois saw a 69% reduction. Both states are politically controlled by Democrats. Meanwhile, some territories received unexpected windfalls, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, which got more than twice its expected allocation.

The National Emergency Management Association said the grants are meant to be distributed based on risk and that it “remains unclear what risk methodology was used” to determine the new funding allocation.

After a group of Democratic states challenged the cuts in court, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order on Sept. 30. That forced FEMA to rescind award notifications and refrain from making payments until a further court order.

The freeze “underscores the uncertainty and political volatility surrounding these awards,” said Frank Pace, administrator of the Hawaii Office of Homeland Security. The Democratic-controlled state received more money than expected, but anticipates the bonus being taken away with the lawsuit.

In Hawaii, where a 2023 wildfire devastated the Maui town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people, the state, counties and nonprofits “face the real possibility” of delays in paying contractors, completing projects and “even staff furloughs or layoffs” if the grant freeze and government shutdown continue, he said.

The myriad setbacks prompted Washington state’s Emergency Management Division to pause filling some positions “out of an abundance of caution,” communications director Karina Shagren said.

A series of delays and cuts disrupts state-federal partnership

Emergency management experts said the moves have created uncertainty for those in charge of preparedness.

The Trump administration has suspended a $3.6 billion FEMA disaster resilience program, cut the FEMA workforce and disrupted routine training.

Other lawsuits also are complicating decision-making. A Manhattan federal judge last week ordered DHS and FEMA to restore $34 million in transit security grants it had withheld from New York City because of its immigration policies.

Another judge in Rhode Island ordered DHS to permanently stop imposing grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement, after ruling in September that the conditions were unlawful — only to have DHS again try to impose them.

Taken together, the turbulence surrounding what was once a reliable partner is prompting some states to prepare for a different relationship with FEMA.

“Given all of the uncertainties,” said Sheets, of the National Emergency Management Association, states are trying to find ways to be “less reliant on federal funding.”

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — More than 20 states are suing the Trump administration for rescinding $7 billion in Congress-approved funds to equip nearly 1 million homes in low-income and disadvantaged communities with solar power.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, accuses the Environmental Protection Agency of breaching grant agreements by unilaterally terminated grants that had already been awarded.

“The administration is again targeting people struggling to get by in America, this time by gutting programs that help low-income households afford electricity, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement.

“Congress passed a solar energy program to help make electricity costs more affordable, but the administration is ignoring the law and focused on the conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax.

The Solar for All program was established with the passage of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which included a $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the EPA to administer.

Using that Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Congress appropriated $7 billion for the EPA to make grants, loans and financial assistance available for low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from zero-emission technologies, including solar power.

In April 2024, the EPA announced it had selected 60 applicants to receive the grants. By August of that year, the EPA had awarded program funds to states and other grant recipients.

But in August, the EPA, under the Trump administration, ended the program and reclaimed about 90% of the funds already awarded.

The 22 states, along with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, are accusing the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how administrative agencies operate, and the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by canceling the program.

The plaintiffs allege that the EPA is using an “erroneous interpretation” of H.R. 1, which the Trump administration calls the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress in July, to justify the termination of the grants.

The states on Wednesday also filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover damages caused by the alleged breach of the grant agreements.

Earlier this month, a coalition of solar energy companies, labor unions and homeowners sued the EPA over the termination of the grants.