City Hall turmoil: Four deputy mayors quitting Adams administration over mayor’s cooperation with Trump by Barbara Russo-Lennon & Robert Pozarycki amny.com Posted on February 17, 2025 https://www.amny.com/news/deputy-mayors ... min-trump/
Mayor Eric Adams and First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer. Photo by Ethan Stark-Miller
Four of Eric Adams’ deputy mayors and top advisors resigned their posts Monday over his cooperation with President Trump a week after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the criminal charges against the embattled mayor, amNewYork Metro has confirmed.
The deputy mayors who announced their departures are Maria Torres-Springer, Anne Williams-Isom, Meera Joshi and Chauncey Parker. A spokesperson for City Hall said the resignations are not effective immediately.
“They’re going to stay on for the next few weeks to make sure the transition is smooth, and there are already talks about who will replace them,” the spokesperson said.
Adams said in a statement he is disappointed to see them go, but “given the current challenges,” he understands their decisions.
“Maria Torres-Springer, Anne Williams-Isom, Meera Joshi, and Chauncey Parker are extraordinary public servants who have been vital to our work reshaping New York City,” Adams said. “Together, we’ve broken housing records, created the most jobs in the city’s history, provided for hundreds of thousands of longtime New Yorkers and migrants, built unprecedented public spaces, and made our city safer at every level. New Yorkers owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for their service to our city.”
From l. to r.: Deputy Mayors Maria Torres-Springer, Meera Joshi, Anne Williams-Isom and Chauncey Parker. Photos by Lloyd Mitchell, Ethan Stark-Miller and NYC Mayoral Photography Unit
The four resigning deputy mayors handle operations, housing, economic development, labor health and human services, infrastructure, and public safety—some of the city government’s most critical responsibilities.
Losing all four deputy mayors — three of whom have been with Adams from the beginning of his term — strikes a catastrophic blow to Adams’ increasingly tenuous hold on his office at a time when he faces mounting calls for his resignation or removal following the Trump Justice Department moving to drop the federal criminal case against him, and his stated cooperation with feds on deportation efforts.
Even so, Mayor Adams sought to reassure the city that things will keep “moving forward.”
“The people of New York City remain, without question, our top priority,” he said. “I am solely beholden to the 8.3 million New Yorkers I represent, and I will always put this city first — as I always have.”
Torres-Springer took over as first deputy mayor following Sheena Wright’s departure in September. Wright was part of the wave of Adams administration officials who left their posts amid ongoing federal investigations that started last year.
Williams-Isom oversees and coordinates operations of city hospitals, and Meera Joshi heads operations.
The New York Post first reported Monday’s resignations, hours after multiple outlets reported rumblings of the City Hall chaos.
Deputy Mayor for Operations Meera Joshi. Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office
Hochul and the Adams administration
The resignations come as pressure mounts on Gov. Kathy Hochul to use her executive power to boot Adams from office after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed Manhattan federal prosecutors to drop his five-count corruption indictment on Feb. 10.
According to a NBC New York report, the deputy mayors said they had concerns about their ability to continue on with the mayor’s team in light of the DOJ move, which temporarily suspends possible criminal charges against Adams.
Several federal prosecutors resigned last week in protest, including U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon, who alleged that Adams’ defense team offered a “quid pro quo” to the Justice Department of cooperation with Trump’s immigration crackdown in exchange for having the case dismissed.
Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Anne Williams-Isom. Credit: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office
Other city elected officials, meanwhile, have also expressed concern about where Mayor Adams’ loyalties lie, with some going as far as to suggest Trump had politically compromised him.
“According to the Department of Justice’s recent directive, Mayor Adams adopted a strategy of selling out marginalized New Yorkers and our city’s values to avoid personal and legal accountability,” NYC public advocate Jumaane Williams said in a recent statement. “Well, it worked. I hope it was worth it.”
On Sunday, hundreds of demonstrators marched in Lower Manhattan, demanding that Hochul remove the mayor from office. Last week, in wake of the fallout from the Justice Department’s effort to dismiss the Adams case, Hochul told MSNBC that she was evaluating her options on taking action.
But Adams has continued to insist on his innocence and has repeatedly said since Feb. 10 that he is not leaving the job, telling congregants at a Queens church Sunday, “I am going nowhere.” That statement came after he explicitly denied a quid pro quo with Trump’s Justice Department in a statement Friday.
“I want to be crystal clear with New Yorkers: I never offered — nor did anyone offer on my behalf — any trade of my authority as your mayor for an end to my case. Never,” Adams said in a Feb. 14 statement released from City Hall. “I am solely beholden to the 8.3 million New Yorkers that I represent, and I will always put this city first.”
The four resigning deputy mayors
Maria Torres-Springer, Deputy Mayor of Housing, Economic Development and Workforce: Mayor Adams appointed her to the post in May 2023 to succeed Jessica Katz in the now-defunct Chief Housing Officer role. She oversees agencies including the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the Housing Development Corporation and Housing Recovery Office. She began with the Adams administration on its first day, Jan. 1, 2022, as Deputy Mayor for Economic and Workforce Development.
Meera Joshi, Deputy Mayor for Operations: Another original member of the Adams administration, the former Taxi and Limousine Commissioner was appointed the post in December 2021, and took office on Jan. 1, 2022. The deputy mayor of operations helps the administration develop polices related to government operations and infrastructure.
Anne Williams-Isom, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services: The third original member of the Adams administration mentioned as considering resignation, Williams-Isom took office on Jan. 1, 2022 in a role designed to help guide policies related to the city’s health and welfare. Mayor Adams credited her for helping to lead the city through the migrant crisis of 2022-23, finding homes for tens of thousands of newcomers.
Chauncey Parker, Deputy Mayor of Public Safety: Parker succeeded the embattled Phillip Banks in the role just last October after Banks resigned from the post helping to guide policing policies. Prior to his appointment, Parker was the assistant deputy mayor of public safety and a deputy commissioner for collaborative policing at the NYPD.
Currently the U.S. economy is experiencing a bout of increased inflation, resulting in rising prices. The U.S. Federal Reserve, as well as its counterparts in other countries, have engaged in a series of interest rate hikes in an effort to combat rising inflation. Although inflation did not have a significant impact on our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022, we anticipate that inflation will have an impact on our business going forward, including through a material increase in our cost of revenue and operating expenses in the coming years, if not permanently. Continued or permanent rises in core costs could impact our growth negatively.
Current Economic Conditions
We are subject to risks and uncertainties caused by events with significant macroeconomic impacts, including, but not limited to, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and actions taken to counter inflation. Supply chain constraints, labor shortages, inflation, and rising interest rates and reduced consumer confidence have caused advertisers in a variety of industries to be cautious in their spending and to either pause or slow their campaigns.
In order to manage our cost structure in light of the current macroeconomic environment and pending TMTG’s access to additional capital via the Business Combination, we sought opportunities to reduce our expense growth. Following the elimination of several positions in March 2023, we paused hiring in the second quarter of 2023. We were subsequently more selective about the roles that we filled, resulting in some attrition. We also reduced non-labor spend in areas such as travel, rent, consulting fees, and professional services.
The extent of the ongoing impact of these macroeconomic events on our business and on global economic activity is uncertain and may continue to adversely affect our business, operations and financial results. Our past results may not be indicative of our future performance, and historical trends in revenue, income(loss) from operations, net income(loss), and net income(loss) per share may differ materially.
President Donald J. Trump
TMTG’s success depends in part on the popularity of our brand and the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump. The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer. Adverse reactions to publicity relating to President Donald J. Trump, or the loss of his services, could adversely affect TMTG’s revenues, results of operations and its ability to maintain or generate a consumer base. President Donald J. Trump is involved in numerous lawsuits and other matters that could damage his reputation. Additionally, TMTG’s business plan relies on President Donald J. Trump bringing his former social media followers to TMTG’s platform. In the event any of these, or other events, cause his followers to lose interest in his messages, the number of users of our platform could decline or not grow as we have assumed. To the extent users prefer a platform that is not associated with President Donald J. Trump, TMTG’s ability to attract users may decrease.
‘Border Czar’ Doubles Down on Asking if DOJ Should Prosecute AOC for Informing Immigrants of Their Rights: "I'm asking the Department of Justice, who are the prosecutors and decide who they prosecute and what the standards of that prosecution is," Tom Homan said after suggesting "AOC’s gonna be in trouble now" by Peter Wade Rolling Stone February 16, 2025 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 235269988/
Tom Homan, Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on February 14, 2025, in New York City. John Lamparski/Getty Images
Trump Border Czar Tom Homan is not backing down from his suggestion that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could have broken the law by holding a webinar informing immigrants of their rights during encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Homan said on Fox News last week when discussing the webinar, “Is that impeding our law enforcement efforts? And if so, what are we going to do about it? Is she crossing the line? So, I’m working with the Department of Justice and finding out. Where is that line that they cross? So, maybe AOC’s gonna be in trouble now.”
When CNN host Dana Bash asked about the comments on Sunday’s State of the Union, Homan didn’t back down.
“Are you suggesting that she should be prosecuted?” Bash asked.
“I’m suggesting that I would ask the Department of Justice, where’s that line on impediment, right? That’s a broad statute. So I know impeding or someone stopping in front of me and putting their hands on my chest that you’re not coming in here to arrest that guy, that’s clearly impeding. But at what line — where’s the line on impeding? I’m asking the Department of Justice, who are the prosecutors and decide who they prosecute and what the standards of that prosecution is. I simply says [sic], at what point is that impeding? Because you can call it know your rights all you want. We all know the bottom line is, the bottom line is how they evade law enforcement. Don’t open your door. Don’t answer questions.”
Homan appears to be suggesting that AOC is “impeding” ICE arrests simply informing immigrants of constitutional protections such as the right to protection from unlawful searches, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.
A flyer on AOC’s website outlines Constitutional rights that apply to interactions with law enforcement, including that you “do not have to open the door” to ICE and “can ask them to leave” if they don’t have a warrant. The flyer also points out that you “can stay silent” because the Fifth Amendment “protects the right to remain silent and to not incriminate yourself.”
“I think it’s more about how they evade law enforcement not to get arrested, even though there’s a federal warrant for your arrest, how they evade that, rather than know your rights,” he continued. “Now, we can argue about that all day long. They have the right to know their rights. The Constitution said they have the right to certain rights. But, also… I hope to God we’re not educating people [who] are going to be the next murderer of a college student.”
Bash responded, “She said that she is just offering civil education and that you might be — quote — ‘vaguely familiar’ with the U.S. immigration law, but that she’s just doing what she needs to do to remind people the law of the land passed by congressional statute.”
“I forgot more about immigration law than AOC will ever know,” Homan snapped.
In a statement to Fox News, AOC said, “I am glad Mr. Homan is checking with the Department of Justice to familiarize himself with the limits of his agency’s authority in entering the homes of everyday Americans without a warrant. And I am proud to offer civil education to everyday Americans to ensure ICE’s compliance with the law, given the numerous reports of agents providing incorrect paperwork in their attempts to enter and search private homes. Since Mr. Homan seems to be vaguely familiar with U.S. immigration law, we also remind him that according to Congressional statute, becoming undocumented in the United States is a civil offense and not a criminal one. I look forward to continuing our work in ensuring the safety of everyday New Yorkers while keeping families together.”
AOC wrote on X, “Maybe [Homan] can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start.”
“An administration official suggesting that the DOJ may prosecute a member of Congress for advising people about their rights,” Brendan Nyhan, James O. Freedman Presidential Professor at Dartmouth, posted to X (formerly Twitter). “Happening right now. Right in front of us.”
Donald Trump has promised mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and as many as 1,500 ICE arrests per day. This month, the administration is falling far short of that target, with fewer than 600 ICE arrests in the first 13 days.
Homan said he is “not happy with the numbers” and complained that it is “hard” to locate undocumented immigrants, especially when, he claims, “Sanctuary cities are causing us a lot of work.”
“It is hard because, rather than one man arresting one bad guy in the jail, we have got to send whole teams to the field to find someone that doesn’t want to be found,” he said. “And so it’s hard work, but we’re not giving up.”
50501 Organizers Launch 'Not My Presidents Day' Nationwide Day of Action by Jenna deJong and Natalie Venegas Newsweek Published Feb 12, 2025 at 5:23 PM EST Updated Feb 17, 2025 at 10:15 AM EST https://www.newsweek.com/50501-movement ... ts-2029529
The grassroots organizations 50501 Movement and Political Revolution are partnering to organize a nationwide day of action on February 17—Presidents Day—under the banner "Not My Presidents Day."
The event, set to take place in all 50 states, is aimed at opposing policies enacted by President Donald Trump since his return to the White House.
Why It Matters
The 50501 Movement, named for its goal of holding protests in all 50 states on a single day, recently emerged as a major anti-Trump activist group. Organizers cite their opposition to Trump's recent executive actions, including changes to immigration policy and federal agency restructuring, as key motivators for the upcoming protests. According to GV Wire, the movement's organizers describe their mission as a fight against "fascism" and a call for "government accountability."
Political Revolution, a group initially created to support Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential bid, partnered with the 50501 Movement to host the nationwide anti-Trump protests on February 5. The groups say they oppose Trump policies that they argue undermine democracy and civil rights, including what they perceive as a conservative-driven agenda under Project 2025, a framework backed by some of Trump's allies to overhaul the federal government.
What Is the 50501 Movement?
The 50501 Movement is a grassroots initiative organizing mass protests against the Trump administration's policies. The name derives from the movement's goal: 50 states, 50 protests, in one day. According to the organization's website, the ideal was born on Reddit and spread by word of mouth via social media.
What To Know
Unlike the February 5 rallies, the 50501 organizers are encouraging a "day of action" for President's Day. The group posted to Instagram that it's "asking you again to gather or participate in other ways." The post goes on to suggest that followers should attend or organize a protest, strategize with other local organizers, inundate their representatives with calls and emails and take a moment of self-care in solidarity.
"Every small act contributes to a powerful collective movement," the post says.
The February 5 rallies were held at state capitols and other key locations nationwide, with large demonstrations in cities such as New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Organizers have stressed that the events are intended to be peaceful and have encouraged participants to coordinate with local authorities where necessary.
"This movement is about more than just one day—it's about standing firm in our beliefs and seeing it through, no matter the challenges we may face," 50501 organizers stated in a social media post.
50501 Movement and Political Revolution organizers believe their partnership will help them reach more activists and ensure sustained engagement beyond February 17.
Where Are the "Not My Presidents Day" Protests Happening?
A national press liaison for 50501 told Newsweek of the February 5 rallies: "I can't speak to individual states, however, I know that overall the turnout for these protests was larger than expected. Eighty cities participated, with tens of thousands of people showing up nationally."
The representative added, "After the 'Not My Presidents Day' of action, we will likely quickly regroup to plan another action, however we do not have anything planned as of yet."
Here is a list of cities that are currently planning "Not My Presidents Day" protests and events:
California: Riverside City Hall at noon; Salinas City Hall at noon; San Luis Obispo City Hall at noon Florida: Tampa City Hall at noon; Old Lee County Courthouse at 2 p.m. Hawaii: Maui County Building at 3 p.m. Idaho: Capitol Building at noon Indiana: Capitol Building at noon; 201 SE Riverside Dr., Evansville at noon; Iowa: Capitol Building at noon Kentucky: Capitol Building at noon Nevada: Las Vegas City Hall at noon New Jersey: Capitol Building at noon New York: Public Square in Watertown at noon; Niagara Square in Buffalo at noon; Union Square at 1 p.m. North Carolina: Bicentennial Plaza in Raleigh at 3 p.m. Oklahoma: State Capitol at noon Oregon: Portland City Hall at noon; Capitol Foundation at noon Pennsylvania: Philadelphia City Hall at noon; William S. Moorhead Federal Building in Pittsburgh at noon; South Carolina: Myrtle Beach City Hall at 10 a.m. Texas: Houston City Hall at noon Washington, D.C.: Capitol Reflection Pool at noon
What People Are Saying
A national press liaison for 50501 told Newsweek: "As for the 'Not My Presidents Day' protests, we're pushing that as more of a 'day of action,' which would include email and phone banking, participating in volunteer activities that directly help those affected by Trump's policies, donating to charities, etc. There will still primarily be protests, though."
One Reddit user by the name u/Going2BeLate posted: "The protests last week were fun, safe, well-run and peaceful with people of all ages. If people don't get out nothing will change."
Another Reddit user by the name u/NobodyCares82 posted in the same thread: "Just to be clear which president are we protesting? Trump, Musk, or both?"
Cristin Wormuth, who helped organize the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, demonstration, previously told Newsweek: "I can see how our democracy is being eroded, and the foundational principles of our country are being challenged in a way that will do irreparable harm to our nation. Regardless of what political party someone supports, all Americans should protect our constitutional rights."
What Happens Next
Organizers have indicated that the "day of action" on February 17 will not be their final event. Discussions are already underway for additional demonstrations in the coming months, with some activists suggesting another coordinated protest on March 5.
Updated on 2/17/25 at 10:15 a.m. ET to update the location of the Washington, D.C. protest.
This Time Trump's DAMAGE Will Be Permanent | Shield of the Republic by Eliot A. Cohen and Eric Edelman The Bulwark Feb 16, 2025 Shield of the Republic Podcast
Eric and Eliot try to parse the fire hose of news emanating from the Trump Administration. They discuss Eliot's Atlantic article on the American antecedents and causes of Trump's ascendancy and whether there is still some point in looking at the European autocrats like Viktor Orban on whom some Trumpists model themselves, as well as Ruy Texeira's article in the Free Press arguing that defending USAID is not the hill to die on for Democrats. They also discuss Richard Danzig's Washington Post article on how Elon Musk's DOGE might constructively help reform DoD's broken and dysfunctional acquisition process. They discuss the problems with Trump's Gaza proposal as well as the fact that it highlights how all other approaches to the issue of Gaza's relations with Israel have heretofore failed. They discuss Trump's executive order on Iran as well as General Keith Kellogg's preparations for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine and Trump's offer to resettle White Afrikaaners who have been disadvantaged by majority rule in South Africa.
Transcript
have you had any of those conversations which begin with somebody saying look I really hate Trump but no I have not had any of those [Music] conversations welcome to Shield of the Republic a podcast sponsored by the bullwark and the Miller Center of public affairs at the University of Virginia I'm Eric Edelman and I am a non-resident fellow at the Miller Center and a contributor to the bullwark and I'm joined from sunny I hope espia by my partner in all things strategy Grand and not so Grand Elliot Cohen who is professor emeritus of strategy at the Johns Hopkins University School of advanced international studies and a contributing writer for the uh Atlantic Elliot how how is P oh you know I mean after a while the unremitting sunshine the temperature at you know about 60 the thick hot chocolate the the Cherry the oranges I mean it wears on you after a while you know I I can imag I can imagine way how's how's the weather where you are it's actually sunny right now although it's about to I we're about to enter into several days of uh possible snow storms so you you know um I I I will be thinking of you and the Sun and you know sipping tempero and um and trying not to feel too jealous well actually we're flying back into that so I I I hope we'll be able to make it so plenty of stuff uh to discuss um uh Eric as as usual I will be faintly less pessimistic than you are but that's a really low bar so why don't you just start with your dark visions of how the world is getting you know just really about to go off the cliff um yeah look I I I I think that you know um we're in a very dangerous place right now um but look you you had a piece in the Atlantic I wanted to start us off on which uh basically said look all these people like me uh have been comparing Trump to various authoritarians around the world whether it's Putin whether it's Victor Orban or my personal favorite reie Ty erdogan in Turkey um and that uh your point was that Trump is a very American phenomenon and there are plenty of antecedants in America for for Trump you know Andrew Jackson um you know father cogin uh you know various uh demagogues uh at the turn of the in the turn of the century South in the United States which I spent some of my misspent youth as a graduate student actually studying um and and of course Eugene I mean not Eugene I'm sorry uh Joseph McCarthy and um and I certainly agree with the latter in particular I mean I think there is a lot of uh you know McCarthyism in in trumpism and there's also kind of a you know a genealogical uh element there because of course McCarthy's um emmanu Roy Cohen was also sort of uh Trump's consiliary early in his career as a New York real estate developer so I I guess I you know I'm I happy to concede the point that there are plenty of American antecedants I guess what I would would just say is though I think that we should bear in mind that that while that is certainly true some of these comparisons to uh you know European autocrats are you know also still important to keep in mind in part because uh some of these people like vice president Vance Have You Know spoken about their enormous admiration for Victor orbon um there was um you know Vance was just quoting uh uh Harvard law professor Adam verule who uh was tweeting about why we should disregard the decisions of Judges ver mule like like Vance is a kind of wants a kind kind of Catholic theocracy um you know there's there's some other antecedants there I mean the Neo reactionary movement that Curtis yarvin uh you know has written about a lot of that is rooted in this sort of kind of weird anarcho fascist Phenomenon with Murray rothbard writing about um his admiration for musolini I you know there just a lot of elements there and just over the week and you know the fact that um president Trump stripped Mark Zade who's a lawyer does National Security work in DC on security clearances a lot of our former students have actually used his services and when dealing with some complicated you know clearance issues uh had his clearance stripped because he's been suing uh the Trump Administration and watching him go after lawyers that's a very you know Putin likee step so anyway I I I just see you know uh elements of both here so so in what I suspect is going to be a series of attempts by made to explain myself um let me push um so you know on the one hand I I think there is some sort of there's some commonality with things that are happening elsewhere in the west which is a general kind of revulsion against let's call them liberal Elites but Mo I guess most broadly I would say you know that what what is the what is our task now obviously if there are particular things that are going that we think are bad that we can fight we should fight them but I think the task for intellectuals first figure out well how do we get here why is it that we're in the circumstance that we're in and I really don't think comparisons with musolini or Victor Orban or any of these people is of any use whatsoever I mean there there has been a particular um I think kind of cultural evolution in the United States um there's a particular history in the United States I I think certainly there a way of think about our future it's crazy because you're dealing with countries that are completely different histories in the United States you know you begin talking about viar Germany or even you know orban's Hungary places you know Hungary traumatized by 50 years under the Russian boot bimar Germany having gone through World War I um you know Turkey having always had this conservative large conservative religious population that rebelled against the hypers secularism of OT Turk none of these analogies are helpful in understanding why we are where we are which I think is really the first thing that that is of importance and I think the smartest Democrats understand that as I said I can see that there are some elements of commonality here in what are the underlying phenomena but I think there's as I point out in the article there's some very big differences between what the Trump people are trying to do and what you see other autocrats doing one is um Al although on the one hand you're quite right Trump wants to expand executive power in ways that are illegitimate and dangerous on the whole the Enterprise is an attempt to destroy the government it's not to make it stronger it it is you know to dismantle agencies not to create them and I think that's actually quite significant I point to some other very to my mind very substantial differences I I also think that um although I agree with you we're in a we're in a dangerous time you know sooner in some ways than I expected we're going to begin to see whether the rails will hold particularly if they decide simply to disregard court orders now that it seems to me those will a lot of the things we're talking about ending Birthright citizenship or even deciding you know trying to decide the federal govern that the executive branch can decide not to spend money that Congress is appropriate that's going to end up at the Supreme Court I think all of those and we'll see um I actually think it's a mistake to think that this Supreme Court will go along with that you know I I mean as I point out in the article the the justices who've been most trumpy if that's a word have been Alo and to some extent Clarence Thomas I I don't think the others are going to go along with that and I also think that uh you know the fact is this was a 50-50 kind of election although Trump is has gotten a bit is to some extent popular because people like the idea of not spending money on Farm grenade and you know taking down Dei and and stuff like that um I don't think that a lot of what they're doing is very popular and it's not going to be popular um you know you stop spending money you know farmers are getting upset tariffs are not going to do any good whatsoever for their own um people so I I just think you know the laws of gravity are going to operate that's not I'm not trying to downplay the dangers because I think the dangers are are real but but I I do think that we make a mistake first by really whipping ourselves into a frenzy because they like that among other things but but I also think just in terms of diagnosis and long-term repair to the system you know what we need to do is we need to look as I say at the end of the the article we need to look at ourselves in the mirror rather than look out the window and and in a certain way I I have to say I I feel that the analogy to the orbons and the uh let alone to the molinis and then you know the argument at Hitler is always a sign that you've you know you've run out of arguments it it's actually an excuse for inaction because you say oh my God oh my God All Is Lost there's nothing we can do it's terrible and okay all you're left with is reaching for the cyanide pills U as opposed to saying no maybe actually some of the things that we did helped lead to this situation and maybe they're concrete things we can do to help fix it I mean there's I I you know as I think I said very early on after the election if there's one thing that I think is a mistake right now it's for people who are as opposed to this Administration as you and I are is to get hysterical it's counterproductive and it just makes them happy yeah I agree look I agree with a lot of what you said first of all but there are some areas that I I think I U have some minor disagreements I agree that you know we need to look at you know the United States to understand this phenomenon and and as I said the McCarthy phenomenon is probably the closest in a lot of ways that we've come to this although there there elements of father cogin and and and and there's a Jacksonian element you know as you argue as well um I do think there's something you know to be gained from looking at the um you know recent uh European uh uh experiences with some of this because as you say it is a global phenomenon and some of the techniques and tactics that are being used are being either copied or borrowed from others and that's important to understand not not least and this is maybe an area where I disagree with you I agree they're trying to weaken the government but that doesn't mean that they're trying to weaken their own hold on power quite the contrary of the the weakening of the government actually goes hand inand with you know asserting their control and power over you know what in the in the European context would be called the power Ministries and so you see these loyalty Oaths being um you know imposed or or loyalty tests being imposed on people they're putting into um you know into senior positions in the intelligence community and in in the uh you know government um um National Security elements of the government where people are being asked to it's you know orwellian you know you know the president said yesterday that January 6th you know it was the people who were arrested who were being brutalized and people are now being asked to say yes January 6 was an inside job if you want to be in the senior ranks of intelligence or elsewhere so that is it is and it's outrageous it isn't change the fact that it's the states that are going to run the elections not the federal government government it doesn't change the fact that you have a federal that you have a federal system it doesn't change the fact that this guy is almost 80 years old and he is not you know despite kind of joking to get People Like Us upset he's not going to run for a third term I mean that you know I I I and I I think I really push back on the orbon and other analogies because allo say is they they point out the things that we see are going on we don't we don't need the analogies we don't need the analogy to Orban or erdogan to see what they're doing you could just have to read the news but but the point of these analogies is Orban and erdogan have succeeded and it's not part of a handbook of what do you do to unspool this and what you need to be thinking about is how do we unspool this we we know what's going on and we don't have to we can get it from our own papers yes it's a good point and I I mean actually one of the other things I wanted to talk about was uh um article in the Free Press by ruie tahara uh who's written a lot of very good stuff about you know how the Democrats ought to think about their problems this article I had a lot little bit of a problem with as well I mean he he basically says don't fight and die on the hill of us ID um and I kind of get that because what he's basically saying is look this is the kind of political terrain that the Trump is want you to fight on because Americans don't like foreign assistance they think you know they have got uh highly based on polling data highly distorted ideas of how much we spend on foreign assistance uh you know it's one less than 1% of the federal budget but they you know if you ask people in The Blind how much do you think we spend on you know foreign assistance in the federal government they'll tell you 15% of the budget 25% of the budget it's very outlandish so it's an easy target you know there's not a well there are some domestic constituencies but there are weak domestic constituencies for this and I get the point that um you know that fighting for uh you know you know to preserve usaid is politically probably not the greatest ground for Dems to stand on however I don't think that means we shouldn't object to it and I think there's a way to describe it and discuss it that I think does get at some larger problems we talked a couple of weeks ago about what you know we thought about the first few weeks or the first week or so of of trump and I said I thought the thing that distinguished it was the lawlessness and the recklessness well this is an an area where this is you know I'm perfectly happy as you know a former Ambassador who had Aid missions in his embassies to say there are lots of things that you know we can talk about and debate about usid and reforming it and there's an argument that I've made it myself that it should be in the state department not an independent agency however there is a statute on the books passed by the Congress in the late 1990s that says it is an independent agency and to have Elon Musk swoop in with a bunch of 22y old um you know Mal you know maladjusted um you know incel white supremacist you know computer nerds who know nothing about you know foreign assistance and have them you know not doing any kind of review um you know not kind of deciding what needs to be kept what needs what needs to be closed down and outside the normal budget process without any kind of you know legal hook on it you know violating multiple laws um not just the law that establishes usaid but the administrative procedures act the Privacy Act um you know the foreign assistance act um you know I think there's plenty to push back on is because I don't think Americans want their government to be run that way so I I I mean look I agree with that by the way it's not just Roy toer who I agree with you I think is a very acute analyst who's been enormously frustrated at trying to get get the Democrats to understand what just happened to them but also Rah Emanuel who I think is a very sophisticated politician and internationally minded who also said this is not the hill to die on um you know I I don't have enough expertise on domestic politics to know uh to know how to do that look I think think we're we're you know you and I are both kind of instinctively revolted at the a lot of the foreign policy stuff more than most people um I where I think we're probably in agreement unfortunately is I think this stuff is not going to stop in some ways it's going to get worse and this time around unlike the last time I think the damage to the to the nature of American Global Leadership will be permanent and and you know but but the way I mean here maybe you know you can call me a defeatist if you like but my view is okay so what's my job now is it is there any chance we're going to reverse that no short of not just Trump you know having uh a an aneurism but JD Vance also having an aneurism um this is what the kind of stuff we're going to do Vance would be a little bit smoother but I agree with you he's he's in some ways even more dangerous uh and he is in isolation um so we're going to have to think out think about you know you know what exactly is the Ned States going to do because there's a conundrum and you and I have talked about Michael beckley's recent pieces in the Foreign Affairs which and you know we'll probably get them on on the show uh the United States will remain probably prosperous and very powerful so what you know how will we exert ourselves in the world but this is the final I I and here maybe I I do have a dark view although I I don't know um I this is the end of the world order that you and I grew up with and that you in particular grew up serving I did in a a smaller way I you know I spent most of my career expounding it and it's shocking to have it blown up in this respect though by the way I think that Trump is partly cause and partly manifestation of deeper things I mean that's the you know the more I think about this the more I'm I'm inclined to step back and say okay H how much of this is the result of having had pretty awful leadership since at least the Reagan Era um and how much of this is a result of both parties including the party that you and I were part of being willing to give the president Unholy amounts of power you know and I I mean I remember from our time in government you know the the the view that people had of executive power which made me uneasy then and Obama ran with that and Biden ran with that so now Trump's running with it some more I mean for example I think one of the biggest challenges we're going to face I'm I have no idea whether we'll beet it or not is when the wreckage is cleared from this can we create a system that puts more constraints on the president because I think that's really clearly needed uh it's it's I think it's one of the most essential things that we need to do as we think about our constitutional structur we need to find a way to reign in executive power well I think we need to find a way to make the Constitutional structure work the way it was intended to work right which is that the founders when they you designed uh the government and then explicated in the Federal papers uh did not anticipate the rise of political parties they they anticipated faction but they didn't anticipate political parties they certainly didn't U anticipate the kind of uh polarized political situation we have although they dealt with something close to it very early on in the Republic as we know from our discussion with Lindsay trinsky um but what they counted on was and and what got them through that period was people's attach institutional attachments a triumphing over partisanship at some level and in other words the Congress acted to offset powers of the executive or you know Reign them in and that has been true more or less you know throughout our government's history and right now we do we we we have a congress and and you could make the argument I think as you have been making that Congress over a long period of time has been yielding power to the executive but um we now have a Congress that is like willingly giving up its its power even though they know it's being taken away and they kind of know it's not right yeah I I I agree with that um look I think they but it's true the founders also thought that there were other things that would keep the United States going part of it was simply it's great extent you know one of the big arguments that they have to make is I mean when everybody thinks of democracy in 1776 they think oh Greek city states those are really unstable tiny yeah and and or or they think well democracy yeah of course it can work if if you know if it is a city state as unstable as they are and part of the genius of the argument was that no actually you know you can create a republic which will be and they called it an Empire um and that actually the extent of it and the variety of the people in it and all that would help so let me let me shift things a little bit and this is I'm walking on thin ice here but have you had any of those conversations which begin with somebody saying look I really hate Trump but no I have not had any of those conversations well I'm sure you have so so do tell you run in more close-minded circles than I do I'm absolutely sure of it yeah well I no I have had some um and they are over things like uh the end of Dei um which I think is actually you know I'm signed up for that too uh I mean having having seen up close how those bureaucracies functioned in the academic world um you know the kind of frontal assault on identity politics that that's fine with me uh I will give the devil his due I think on Gaza you know of course he characteristically blew blew himself up but he I think he did actually get a deal which brought a few of the host Israeli hostages back actually more by threatening Netanyahu than than uh Hamas because he doesn't really have anything to threaten Hamas with um and you can even say that his utterly outlandish you know wrongheaded uh inhumane immoral illegal um War criming statement that well War crime okay you know take out your thesaurus uh I'll mash it against mine um you know he's at least recognizing the man magnitude of the problem that you have in Gaza which is you know as you and I have discussed you know having seen that firsthand it is it is devastating you know it's interesting that he said that economic sanctions on Russia are at three out of 10 uh in intensity and you know the other this is just a little thing um in the clutching and straws Department we we just just flew a rivet joint aircraft about 140 kilm from Crimea so rivet joint is a manned aircraft it's our premium signals intelligence collector it's usually escorted by fighter jets and I may be mistaken but I don't think we've done that since the Invasion the Biden Administration was they at one point I think they even pulled back some of the unmanned systems that we've been flying in kmia to have done that you know I suspect that that's trying to muscle them a bit in any case I actually um I I've never thought that they he was simply going to dump Ukraine um I think he may be some kind of crazy you know he may have in mind some crazy deal with you know lithium and you know rarus and stuff like that but um you know um he's he's been so far he's been better on that than I I would have expected I mean again in in the uh I love Trump but uh Department um I don't know if you saw this article by our mutual friend Richard danig in the Washington Post so this former Secretary of the Navy in the Clinton Administration uh I think it was Clinton administration saying yep well I I actually wouldn't mind if those Doge people would you know tackle the Pentagon acquisition system so now of course I should just explain to our listeners that my personal view is that Those whom the gods would make mad they first get interested in reforming the defense Department's acquisition system but I know it's a subject that's near and dear to your heart Eric so perhaps you could hold forth on that one so well let me let me start at the end there about Richard's article in the post about you know Doge getting into um the um interstices of the Pentagon and reforming the um much deservedly maligned procurement system so um first Richard's a very smart guy um and very thoughtful uh and I agree that um you know if there is one area where it would be helpful you know to to reform the system uh it is in you know Pentagon procurement in fact that is the grain of a lot of the um a lot of the recommendations we made in the National defense strategy commission that I co-chaired with Jane Haron but I I worry though that about a couple of things one is you know the president said the other day that you know doge is going to tackle DOD and both he and uh Heth secretary Heth have said there's hundreds of billions of dollars they're going to find in waste well having looked at this you know very carefully not only in this commission but in its three predecessors uh and we had in one of the three predecessor commissions uh all the really um uh you know expert folks who've looked at this and who think there is lots of money to be gained by reforming different elements of the Pentagon the highest number we could get from any of them about okay what what what's the order of magnitude of savings you're talking talking about here it was $150 billion over 10 years yeah which is not what they're talking about it's not what they're talking about and and and um it it's not enough to you know do what we need to do as a nation um you know even if you took all those savings 15 billion a year and you know plowed them back into the the building you know to to buy the kinds of things we would like to see them buy you know Etc and that would be if you were doing a good faith effort you know I I don't have much confidence that uh you know Elon who has um you know invade against the um the F35 for instance you know look the F-35 is an aircraft that's got its limits on the other hand the Israelis have just proven how valuable valuable an aircraft that is because it was the you know lead element and um the very successful raid they launched after the October Iranian missile attack on on Israel so you know I'm afraid he'll go after a lot of the wrong things I mean one of the reason they'll go after F-35 is because there's a big bucket of money there uh for procurement of F35 because it's a hundred million dollars a copy and so they'll instead of saying look what we need to do is augment you know F35 with a lot of Cheaper atable systems as the force is trying to do which is h i mean which is happening a lot of those programs are right there so that's that's one thing but let me just let me just finish on that uh because the the the other element of this is that um you can't break the system while you're trying to you know uh reform it I mean I think that is a very bad you know approach to doing this and that's what you know elon's approach is and then finally the man is massively conflicted I mean he he's got you know billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts with elements of the Department of Defense and the intelligence Community how how is that not going to end up being a you know conflict of interest that is you know which only he can resolve according to the White House I'll get back to you on on you know um you know the statesmanship in Gaza and Ukraine in a minute but go ahead no I I I I guess you know what strikes me what strick me about the piece uh as you say Richard is a very smart very thoughtful guy there's no question where his heart is he's a sort of a center Democrat and it's it's an echo of something that I heard the first time that Trump ran in 2015 from very sophisticated professional I knew was a doctor not a not in our world so well you know maybe it's about time that somebody shook things up and and you know it is curious that that I me in a way that was I mean Richard was wrote a much more sophisticated version of that argument but but there was an argument there that you know things really need shaking up and and I think that is part of what is carrying Trump along that an enormous number of people want to see things shaken up and you know as I was saying you know I I I think it behooves us to understand well what did they want to have shaken up and and why the somebody else who wrote I thought a very good piece about this was Tyler Cowan this you know very interesting polymath um at George Mason who said that he thinks that you know what what Trump really cracked was that this is basically about a cultural conflict and that so many of the things he does are in way sending signals about um sort of a pretty large and deep culture War over a whole range of issues and that's what people like about him and that's the source of his appeal you know I'm sure there's more to with than that but but I thought that that's there's a lot to be said for that interpretation I I do want to get us to talk about fore policy though because I mean here it I in some ways I am baffled you know like on Gaza for example I I think it's indisputable he recognizes the magnitude of the problem Gaza is a complete and total wreck two-state solution is really not in the cards anytime in the foreseeable future um but then he has a completely crazy idea we're going to move all the Gins out to Saudi Arabia or puntland or Egypt or Jordan and we're going to redevelop it and it is like you know the lunacy of his ideas about Greenland about Panama about Canada and and it's they're so crazy that they're self-destructive at a certain level um at least that's how it seems to me and and so I I find it hard to understand what's going on there I mean because it at first I thought okay this is just him sort of flim flamming people distracting them getting them off balance trolling them but now there's a piece of me no he actually may be serious about some of this but what's your view so my experience with you know um elected you know senior officials presidents vice presidents Etc is that when they get there um they don't change you know who they are they they become more of what they've always been and in Trump's case the man's formative experiences have been as a real estate developer and he sees the world through that lens and it's location location location um and I think he's dead serious about all of this um you know as as U I've thought that since the beginning um this is as Justin Trudeau has you know said you know um on on a you know hot mic privately he thought um you know um Trump's serious about this he he thinks you know Canada should become the 51st state and um he uh Trump reiterated it uh to Brett Bear last night in his uh you know Super Bowl pre Super Bowl interview um and uh same with Greenland and I think now with Gaza I mean it it is kind of uh you know crazy I me because he first of all he's his staff are telling everybody well we're not going to spend any American money on this or put boots on the ground but he's saying we're going to buy it and own it and you know then rebuild it and he he says well I haven't decided whether I'm going to put boots on the ground well if he actually bought it which I mean I don't even know how you would do that but um he would have to put boots on the ground because there's no other way to secure it so um and already I think there are some you know uh Ram ifications to all this I'm I'm sure this is all pulsing through jihadist uh you know networks online for recruiting uh purposes um you look I think he thinks the path to Greatness his path you know not only to a Nobel Peace Prize but to Mount Rushmore is to you double the size of the United States the way you know Thomas Jefferson did with the Jeff with the Louisiana Purchase and um you know I think his staff is going to spend the rest of their four years trying to you know maneuver this into something where they can actually you know find use in it and yes as you say I mean what he said is about Gaza is um you know a recognition of how you know you know completely everything else that's been tried there has failed you know okay fair enough um but the people who've been most pleased by this is you know the extrem rightwing in Israel who think this is just great because they're committed to removing the Palestinian population Ergo that you know no problem after that yeah no I agree um How likely do you think it is that he will actually get us into a war well you mean inadvertently or advertently I mean I I think actually he uh is you know very um disinclined to use military force um and we've seen that in his first term and you've seen it in the comments he made when he signed the executive order on Iran you know he made made a point that um you know he um you would much prefer to negotiate and have a deal with Iran than to go down any of the military paths and he's also tweeted or truthed on Truth social that um that the reports that the US and and Israel are going to collaborate in bombing Iran into Smither as he said are greatly exaggerated now of course that that formulation you know leaves open the possibility may be exaggerated but at least they've been discussions going on so you know it's not a not a completely happy message for the supreme leader but um but I think he's very reluctant to do that what what I do think Could Happen though is we could get into a conflict because of misperceptions and uh miscommunication I think that is very you know there's a huge potential for that and in particular I worry that a lot of the back and forth and the tariffs and the alienating of allies and whatnot could come back to roost uh if xianping decides he wants to you know U that he wakes up and decides this is the day he wants to reunify uh China and bring Taiwan back into the fold yeah I I mean I I agreee with that and I look do think uh I I have always thought and maybe I'm just clinging to this that we will make it through this period which will be disruptive which I think will actually yield some positive things but mainly is quite negative I mean if we strengthen our constitutional system if we kind of Escape identity politics bunch of other things would be good but I just think the international wreckage is going to be terrible uh and I don't and I think um it's going to it is going to be a real challenge how do you think about you know how does American conduct itself in a world where people really no longer trust our leadership and they no longer uh give us any kind of moral Authority I mean now you know truth is people have always exaggerated the extent to which you know people than Americans thought of us as a uh beacon on a hill um but still we did have a certain moral Authority and this guy is blowing it and in some ways once and for all because you know the first time around you could say it was an accident nobody knew second time around you can't say any of this is an accident you know we we clearly knew what we were doing and we gave him a conclusive Victory you know I think uh that is certainly one you know possible world that we may be you know moving into um perhaps the most likely one on the other hand you know you mentioned Michael Beckley and I I we do need to get Michael on I mean he is he has been writing for some time about um he wrote a book called unrivaled and he's written for some time in a vein that I you know wrote about earlier about with regard to us um Primacy and and uh the way it's being contested now and he basically argues that you know the United States Still Remains exceptional economically uh it still has enormous you know sources of power that nobody else has in the International System um it's you know ironic that his article appeared roughly around the same time that Marco Rubio said oh you know we got to get over it we're not you know not not living in a unipolar world anymore more which is fair enough but you know Marco makes it sound like we're now back in the 19th century you know and it's just competing imperialism um so I I kind of take all that you know but you know look one thing that's Remains the case I think uh our allies whether in Asia or in Europe have great difficulty organizing anything themselves yes we have been the convening power and the organizing power and I think if we get an admin and one of the Biden administration's great strengths actually and you know God knows you've heard me criticize them for the last four years but one of their great strengths was um you know doing a pretty good job of organizing the Allies to provide assistance to Ukraine even if it wasn't enough or fast enough and we have criticism of that um but also the Asian allies you know in terms of OAS and the quad and various other things at trilateral with uh Japan and and the Republic of Korea so you know we uniquely can provide the organizing organizing framework for all that because of our military and economic Global reach no one else can do it so I you know I think if you provide that service again in the future there's a chance that maybe you bring some will never be you know all the way back but you can bring a lot of the sort of authority and you know gravitas of the US in the system back I think so let me both agree and disagree you know I think the it'll be easier in Asia where the I think the Asian states have always had a very transactional they they can deal with the transactional United States um for the Europeans it's harder they've got their own set of challenges but I think um so you know look one of the minor transgressions but still a pretty severe transgression of this Administration is Trump Delights in taking away the security clearances of everybody from Joe Biden to Jake Sullivan to Tony blink and he hasn't gotten around to you yet but I'm sure you're on the list um and it's at one level people might say well that's doesn't really make a difference well actually for some people it makes a financial difference because it means you can't sit on you know corporate boards uh that that do business with the government but there's a deeper thing which is you know we were able to navigate our way through World War II up to the very recent past by having a foreign policy National Security Elite which was more or less bipartisan where people spoke with each other people were at least superficially polite with each other uh you know we've all been at those kinds of gatherings and we all complain about them but you know at the end of the day it's it that was a good thing I find it inconceivable that when the Democrats come back that there won't be payback I mean I I I would suspect you know Mike Walt should not expect to keep his net his security clearances one day longer than a republican Administration and certainly most of the staffers the you know the under secretaries the assistant secretaries many of whom really are trumpers uh through and through they're going to find out that the wheel turns and uh uh they will have made themselves sufficiently unpleasant in a variety of ways that everybody say yeah that's right you know strip them of their clearances plus there'll be a whole generation of missing normal Republican foreign policy National Security people and we both know people who are say in their 40s now who should be in responsible position positions in government getting groomed you know for the really uh big jobs uh by having an early go for it well that that's not happening because you know as I said in an earlier article and as you pointed out in order to get into this Administration you have to lie you have to say that Trump won um in 2020 and that January 6 wasn't a insurrectionary riot so that I I think in some way and I I you know this will sound snoody but societies need Elites and for sure um if you're talking about something as large and complex as the foreign policy of the United States you need a cohesive Elite where there's certain shared assumptions and there's a certain kind of Comedy um and you know you and I have both experienced it uh you know say somebody like mine Albright was always very gracious to me okay it really didn't make a difference I think that I was a republican although she did offer to throw a party if I became a Democrat um but we won't have that and I guess I feel that's consequential don't you I do and I think I think what they've done is very shortsighted um you know there may well come a time where they're going to want to consult with people about some problems that they've got where it would be very helpful to them to have a little bit of bipartisan support and you they've just poisoned the well they've made it impossible for them I mean as you know there you know there any number of times in the government where you're confronted with these you know what what um one of my former bosses who was a secretary of defense said you know most of the decisions that come here are you know if they get to your level My Level he said they're 51 49 you know go either way you know they're hard the hard ones um there are times when you've got to make hard decisions and it may not be clear to people outside the government why you're doing what you're doing and and you need to bring them in and show them um you know as uh as happened for instance during the Cuban Missile Crisis you know Etc so um I think it's very shortsighted I think it's you know bad governance you know frankly um I I always made sure when I was under secretary that you know for instance Walt slokum who was one of my Democratic predecessors that he you know remained a consultant to the office of the Secretary of Defense under secretary defense for policy so we could bring him in and have him talk about stuff K Kennedy made a point of Consulting with Eisenhower yeah uh Kissinger and Nixon made a point of keeping Johnson thoroughly briefed on what was going on it was just understood that that's right that's how you behave I I wasn't surprised that you know Trump uh you know cut Biden off from uh intelligence briefings after all Biden had done that to him you know in the aftermath of January 6th um I'm sure on the assumption that Trump was you know finished politically um I was surprised to see them do it to blinkin and and um and Jake Sullivan you know because that was to me is just gratuitous yeah it's and now what I can't figure out is whether all this is somehow linked to his sense that he was persecuted over that Russian dossier and that these guys were part of it or if it's just a kind of a part of a larger plan to really cut off anybody who disagrees with him um well it's a tool he thinks he has I think that he can wield because the president does have broad discretion I mean what's ironic about this is you know you've got people who have devoted themselves to government service for many many years who have been cleared you know through the normal process uh which is you know pretty exacting having you know gone through it myself you know many you know over the years and but now You' got all sorts of people who aren't cleared at all are just being given clearances willy-nilly who have uh connections to Russia through telegram channels and companies they own and this that and the other thing and uh and these other people are getting their clearances pulled I mean it's really um it's really appalling honestly yeah well there'll be plenty to talk about I'm afraid um um I do want to get back to Ukraine before we wrap up and we we are running short on time and and and there was one final issue I wanted to touch on with you so on Ukraine we had um while you were vacationing in Spain with your family we had um uh our SC colleague Eugene finlon talking about his uh very good book on Russia and Ukraine I guess I'll repeat something I said you know with Eugene about you know my kind of sense of uh kind of where Trump is and it's informed a little bit by things that I heard last week from people um so my sense is number one Trump has been repeatedly briefed by people that Xin ping and but certainly Putin are trying to play him and then he needs to be careful not to be played because I think those people rightly understand that Trump does not like the idea that he's being played by anybody um and that's probably a useful thing uh he's also been briefed I think extensively on uh Russia's weaknesses economically and his comments clearly reflect the fact that he is in you know internalized that and that um if there's anything he understands it's leverage and that you know this is something that gives him leverage with with Putin and that's all to the good um he's also internalized um what um was in uh a very good oped by our friend General Jack Keane and Mark T of of AEI in the post a couple of weeks ago which was that you know additional Aid to Ukraine can and should be provided collateralized by Future access to Ukrainian uh raw materials whether it's oil and gas or Rare Earth minerals about you know of which uh Ukraine has you know quite a bit um and you know that's also in been part of uh zelinsky's Victory plan it's something I think zalinsky talked to him about when they met in the fall and zilinsky just reiterated it uh in an interview he gave with Reuters over over the weekend that is all to the good um what I worry about is when you hear you know General Kellogg talk about this it also is mixed in with other things like uh well first we have to have elections in Ukraine you know because they haven't had them because Ukraine's under martial law and then we can get down to the business of negotiating and so a lot is going to depend on how these various steps get sequenced like additional sanctions elections in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations Etc and I worry a little bit um I'm not sure how well they've thought through the sequencing of all this and I worry a little bit that there will be there certainly going to be some in the administration who just want to get rid of this problem and therefore their idea is going to be let's you know let's elect a Putin friendly government in keev and then you know we'll negotiate and problem solved yeah I think maybe although I you know my reading of this uh for what it's worth is I think uh Trump really wants the Nobel Peace Prize think he he has to be irritated that Obama got it after was it like four days and off office or something um and I agree with absolutely with you know your assessment of his disl being played I think that he thinks the Russians are weak I think he he is aware of how people have always described his relationship to Putin and he's going to show them that they're wrong uh the Russians are weak you know they have not been able to make uh advances the ukrainians have actually taken a bit more out of KK um there's actually a l lot of indications that economically they're in trouble one thing that's quite interesting is the Russians are are putting on this kind of big uh information Blitz to tell everybody that their economy is doing just great and actually I was on another TV show with a Russian immigrate so to speak who was basically trying to say no no no the Russian economy is very strong and I you know it doesn't make any sense to me um I do think he wants to he's going to go for a big deal I I think it is such an intricate intricate problem in some ways I don't think any sequencing would you know make a huge difference I do think what's going to happen is he'll try he I think he has a vision of how of how this thing ends basically ceasefire in place uh policed by the Europeans but with an American guarantee uh that's sort of in the background and you know various other things um I think Russ Putin doesn't want that uh I don't know that he's been brought around so I think actually what we're likely to see is that we muscle the Russians uh I think the rivet joint thing was a signal uh at least partly because we haven't we really haven't done that in a long time and it's it's saying you know don't you dare try anything and I think the sanctions talk was revealing too so I would not be at all surprised if we ratchet that stuff up and I don't know whether Putin will back down over those things because as imperfect as Donald Trump's grip of the world is I'm not sure Vladimir Putin's is any better I mean I tend to think that he you know the information that he's getting makes him think that he's still winning this war um so I think there this is actually headed to some sort of some sort of crisis How It Ends I I don't know although I think at the end of the day it will look something like a ceasefire in place and you know security guarantees of some sort not NATO membership but a a Ukraine that can develop and look given where we thought this was going to be it it's unsatisfactory it's unfair um but given where we thought this was going to be yeah I mean I I I find it hard to believe that Putin is going to relent I mean I think he wants to just extrap Pate Ukraine and and I don't think he's accept anything less but before we close out um I just had ask you one quick question about that great and good Statesman Donald Trump um so you know Donald Trump has made it clear that we're full up we can't take any more refugees we don't need any more immigration Etc but he just signed a executive order um about South Africa and said oh we will take white South Africans if they want to immigrate because they're being treated so poorly in um majority rule South Africa today and I just just throwing that out there and wonder what your take is on that first I think a lot of this is Elon Musk um you know his father and I think his grandfather actually had some pretty um ugly connections and Views coming out of uh right-wing africom um I think you know look there is there is an issue of sort of how the africanas are surviving in in South Africa as it is today but I think it's another example of self harm and it's what goes back to why at the end of the day you know I don't think this guy is nearly as clever as Orban I you know Orban is a very smart guy Orban reads lots of books I actually met met him very early on when he was still supposed to be a good guy he's a very smart fellow um I met him while he was transitioning into being a bad guy only one half of the face was covered with scales and uh one-handed claws I I think um you know look part of what he was part of what Trump was able to do was to convince a lot of African-Americans that he was better for them and that he wasn't a racist now is this you know of itself going to turn things around no but it's an example of of being kind of Reckless about some of this stuff and not thinking through you know how if if I do a a may lead to B and B will probably lead to C and that leads to D is not a good thing for me I just don't think he he thinks that way and therefore I think a lot of the people around him don't don't think that way I I you know I think in many ways a more significant thing is he's deciding to have a bunch of tariff Wars with all kinds of people which are going to hurt his voters or you know Elon Musk is going to go charging through and say oh we can cut billions and billions and billions from Medicaid right right yeah we're 75 million Americans get their healthare yeah I mean I I look do I want to put my faith uh for the future of the great Republic on Donald Trump's infinite capacity for self harm no but but I think you know the the worried listeners of Shield of the Republic can take some comfort in the fact that you know he really does screw a lot of stuff up and you know as you say because presidents tend to become more of what they were before he's going to screw more stuff up feel better well well you know um as you say we we range all the way in our opinion on on children of the Republic from you know Gloom to to doom and this week I think we've inclined more maybe a little bit to the Gloom side so you know I you know I think you should take your victories where you can yeah okay I'll deal with that that'll have to do it for this episode we'll be back next week
Trump: I’ll Break Any Law I Want | MapQuest Resists “Gulf Of America” | Kennedy Center Dishonored The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Feb 17, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue
Stephen employs a metaphor to explain President Trump’s tyrannical behavior over the past week, MapQuest is resisting the president’s order to rename the Gulf of Mexico, and we have a preview of the entertainment Trump has planned as he takes control of an esteemed American cultural institution.
Transcript
welcome welcome one and all to The Late Show I'm your host stephen colbert. it's good to be back with a week off here. It is President's Day yeah so to those who celebrate, why? when I was a kid probably some of y'all when I was a kid on President's Day we celebrated Washington and Lincoln's birthdays, okay. Every February we would hang our stockings and wait for Abraham Lincoln to fill them with wooden teeth now we celebrate all the presidents and Donald Trump is one of them.
Now I just I just took a week off and while I was gone he did a lot. And it's hard to figure out among all the things he did which is the most, the most -- which is the most of what he did in each one of the things he did, individually, which seemed so criminal, and so catastrophic traic that sometimes you you can't see the forest for the trees. Jim, do we have a shot of the forest? yeah there you go. There you go.
Okay I have another metaphor. I have a lot of metaphors. I don't like them, but that's all I have right now. For instance, I hear a lot of people using the old metaphor of the frogs and the slowly boiling water, except I don't think that metaphor really captures the situation that we're in right now. Yes there is a pot, but we're all frogs; we're all in the water; and we know that it's going to boil, and half of us are screaming, "Let's get out of the pot!," and half of us are screaming, "Crank up the heat; make the stove great again!" And we say, "But wait, no, no, you're in here too. You're going to boil." They go, "Good, I don't care as long as you die too." And the chef is leaning over the pot saying, "Technically, none of you are being boiled; you're being poached. I'm going to adjust your legs; I'm just going to take the legs, yeah, and the meat is going to fall right off of America's bones."
And the thing is, we're not the only ones who know he's breaking the law, so does he. Because if he didn't know that, why this weekend would he post, "He who saves his country does not violate any law." That is wild! That was a wild thing he did in a tweet. Do we have video of him saying that?
[Richard Nixon] "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
No, no, no, no, Jim, the current president.
[Dennis Hoppe]] I'll fuck anything that moves."
[Stephen Colbert] There you go. There -- that's him.
Now to be clear, Trump is pre-announcing that he's going to break any law he wants, to get whatever he wants. Now I'm no revolutionary -- I can't grow the beard -- but that is a tyrannical Declaration of power! And as an American Patriot, I just have to say, "The British are coming; the British are coming." Seriously, John Oliver is our guest tonight. There you go. He can't grow the beard either -- they can't throw the beard either.
And by the way, that Trump tweet, like everything he does, is stolen from someone else, right? The phrase, "He who saves his country does not violate any law," is attributed to Napoleon Bonapart, although it is apparently a fake quote. Yes, we all know what Napoleon actually said,
[Singing] "Waterloo! Couldn't escape if I wanted to! A-whoa. A-whoa. A-whoa."
He wrote that; he wrote that.
Trump does have some good qualities. For instance, he's petty and vindictive. Nope, sorry, that's bad again. But remember that stupid thing where Trump unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, and said now everybody's going to say it like he says it? Well, the Associated Press keeps calling it the Gulf of Mexico, cuz that's what it's called. So on Friday, the AP were banned from the Oval Office, and Air Force 1. Indefinitely.
You can't get mad at the AP for not using your stupid name! The thing you should get mad at the AP about is not using the Oxford comma in their style guide, okay? And we all know what the Oxford comma is. Say it with me: "it is the comma before the final conjunction in a list of three or more things." For instance, if I invited Sam, Sally and Tom to a party, without the Oxford comma in, how do I know if Sally and Tom are a couple? They're artificially grouped together, okay? Or if they're individual in a list with Sam, Sally and Tom, Sam needs to know -- he doesn't know -- he needs to know if he can flirt with Sally without Tom getting all weird about it. Or does Sam have to get with Sally and Tom together? Are they cool with that, cuz Sam is.
What I'm saying is, do you have any idea how many thrumples have been destroyed by the lack of an Oxford comma? I'm looking at you AP, you sick, twisted, and kink shaming freaks!?
come on now I'm losing my voice we're one day back and I'm losing my voice now a lot of online Outlets out there have they've crumbled under the Gulf of America pressure including Google Apple and axios but ladies and gentlemen A Lone Hero Stands Tall because Map Quest continues to list it as the dul of Mexico yes hell yeah pack up the Buick lasaber we're going back to 1996 grab your collection of Beanie Babies and get ready to dip Frost your dunkaroos because MapQuest is showing us The Shining path to Revolution and it is an 8 page print out that you accidentally did in full color and your mom's going to kill you for it toner doesn't grow on trees Skyler now let's see this outrageous Act of rebellion yeah baby okay there it is now I want to believe I deep in my heart I want to believe that this stand they're taking is because of the noble convictions of everyone at mapquest. net no one knows but it is possible that there aren't enough people still working at map quest to update anything and I'm being told we have a live feed of their headquarters right now somebody's using Map Quest how to get from Buffalo New York to Six Flags Great Adventure okay buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo screw it i'm GNA use way buffalo buffalo the important thing ladies and gentlemen is is is not to lose hope you got to take the Long View whatever happens at least to have your health okay about that.
[RFK omitted]
But in a time when lies are the coin of the realm never forget that we can take soless in the truth and the beauty of the Arts unfortunately Trump also knows that so last week he named himself chairman of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and will dictate all future programming now there's a president who's focused on what really matters Elon you go fire anyone you want here's everyone's Social Security numbers I got to go pick the plays spoiler alert it's all cats we are going to make skimble Shanks jelal again and no I have no idea what any of those words mean Trump purged the Kennedy Center Board of everyone appointed by President Biden and replaced them with his own political allies donors and their wives including second lady usance well if her husband has any input get ready to see kiss me couch diddler on the poof and of course the sound of meat pork in the sofa he never did any of that but I can lie too come on now Trump declared himself I Trump uh Trump declaring himself emperor of all culture did not sit well with some of the artists a bunch of them cut ties with the Kennedy Center and canceled shows including actor and writer iser producer Sean under rymes and musician Ben Folds but Trump will easily replace them with future Kennedy Senator luminaries Kid Rock Kevin Sorbo and truckasaurus we got a great show for you tonight my guest is John Oliver but when we come back I call a family meeting don't don't you go anywhere Young [Music]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSH SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUG BURGUM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE ZELDIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRIS WRIGHT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; AND RUSSELL VOUGHT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro delivers his budget address for the 2025-26 fiscal year to a joint session of the state House and Senate at the Capitol, Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025, in Harrisburg, Pa. (Matt Rourke/AP)
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) sued President Donald Trump’s administration Thursday to get them to unfreeze over $3 billion of federal funding allocated to his state’s agencies over the next several years.
Trump’s Office of Management and Budget issued a Jan. 27 memo announcing a funding freeze for federal government agencies and quickly rescinded the memo two days later. However, the administration clarified that the funding freeze was still in effect, pursuant to the previous executive orders Trump issued regarding federal department and agency spending.
In the following week, two federal judges in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. granted requests for temporary restraining orders, which halted the funding freeze while litigation continues in the lawsuits.
“While multiple federal judges have ordered the Trump Administration to unfreeze this funding, access has not been restored, leaving my Administration with no choice but to pursue legal action to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and its residents,” Shapiro said in a Thursday statement.
The congressionally-approved funding to Pennsylvania helps agencies in “protecting public health, cutting energy costs, providing safe, clean drinking water, and creating jobs in rural communities,” Shapiro said.
He explained in the lawsuit that one grant program designates billions of dollars to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection over the next 15 years to repair former mining sites because if left abandoned, they can cause sinkholes which can and have caused significant property damage and deaths.
Additionally, the funding is used to maintain over a dozen water treatment systems that deal with toxic runoff from abandoned mines. The department also has funding dedicated to plugging abandoned oil and gas wells, which create greenhouse gas emissions and could even cause explosions.
Two other grant programs each allocate $126 million to allow 28,000 low-income households to perform work on their homes to lower utility bills.
Shapiro said in the lawsuit that he and members of Pennsylvania’s agencies “have been working with federal partners and legislators to try to fully restore access to these funds,” but their efforts have been unsuccessful.
He argued that federal agencies have violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they “possess no authority to refuse to disburse funds authorized and appropriated by Congress and obligated to Pennsylvania agencies.”
Also, Shapiro claimed the Trump administration is not properly performing its constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” He argued the Executive Branch is not properly implementing spending bills passed by the Senate appropriating federal funds.
He asked a federal district court in Pennsylvania to block the Trump administration from “freezing, pausing, conditioning, or otherwise interfering with” federal funding dedicated to Pennsylvania agencies.
************************
Gov. Josh Shapiro sues Trump administration over federal funding freeze, alleging Pennsylvania hasn’t received $2 billion: The move comes after Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday declined to join other states in suing the administration over the federal funding freeze. by Gillian McGoldrick The Philadelphia Inquirer Updated Feb. 13, 2025, 4:29 p.m. ET Published Feb. 13, 2025, 11:36 a.m. ET https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylva ... 50213.html
Speaker of the House Joanna McClinton (left) and Lt. Gov. Austin Davis (right) are seated behind Gov. Josh Shapiro as he delivers his third budget address to a joint session of the state House and Senate at the State Capitol Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025. Tom Gralish / Staff Photographer
HARRISBURG — Gov. Josh Shapiro took the rare step Thursday of suing President Donald Trump’s administration over its alleged failure to disburse more than $2 billion in federal funds to Pennsylvania, calling the move illegal and unconstitutional in the wake of a federal court ordering the White House to restore the funding.
Shapiro, a Democrat and former state attorney general, filed the federal suit in his official capacity as governor of Pennsylvania — an action typically taken by the state’s top prosecutor. But Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday declined to take legal action regarding the funding freeze, instead delegating matters to Shapiro, who sued after weeks of working with Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation in Washington to try to restore the funds.
The lawsuit comes after Trump’s administration issued and then rescinded a temporary pause on federal financial assistance last month, sending state and local officials into a panic. Despite federal courts ordering the Trump administration to restore federal funds, state governments and nonprofits have reported they are still unable to access some federal grants that Congress had allocated.
“While multiple federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze this funding, access has not been restored, leaving my administration with no choice but to pursue legal action to protect the interests of the commonwealth and its residents,” Shapiro said in a news release announcing the suit.
In the suit, Shapiro alleges that Pennsylvania has not been able to draw from several federal grant-funded programs in recent weeks, including projects to reclaim former mine lands, to plug abandoned wells, and to provide funding for energy-efficient projects for low-income families to reduce their utility bills.
The federal government has also restricted Pennsylvania’s access to $3.1 billion in funds obligated to the state for fiscal years 2022 to 2026, Shapiro asserts in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That includes $1.2 billion in congressionally appropriated funds the state was expecting to receive, and $900 million that is on hold during an undefined review process, the lawsuit says.
Approximately 40% of Pennsylvania’s annual spending comes from the federal government. Pennsylvania is already projected to spend more than it collects in revenue this year, with a budget shortfall of $4.5 billion, meaning that any cuts to federal funding would deepen that deficit.
Federal Government Contributes the Largest Share of Funds to Pennsylvania’s Budget. The federal government is expected to contribute $53 billion to Pennsylvania’s budget, or 40% of all funding, according to Gov. Shapiro’s proposed budget for fiscal 2025-26. Dollar figures are in billions.
Shapiro said Trump’s administration is breaking its contract with Pennsylvania by failing to release federal funds to the state, “and it’s my job as governor to protect Pennsylvania’s interests.”
Harrison Fields, a White House deputy press secretary, said in a statement that the Trump administration is ready to face Shapiro and other Democrats challenging Trump’s work in court.
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda,” Fields added.
Pa. Departments That Receive the Majority of Funding From the Federal Government. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, one of the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit filed by Gov. Josh Shapiro, receives 83% of its funding from the federal government, one of seven state departments that get a majority of its funding from Washington. The figures below are anticipated federal funds, in billions, as part of Shapiro's 2025-26 budget proposal. Table: John Duchneskie / Staff Artist Source: Gov. Josh Shapiro Budget in Brief, 2025-26
Shapiro, who served as Pennsylvania’s attorney general during Trump’s first term before he was sworn in as governor in 2023, is no stranger to suing Trump, and often joined other Democratic attorneys general in taking legal action against the first administration. Since Trump took office again in January, Democratic attorneys general, including New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, have similarly stepped in to sue over the administration’s many executive actions that they see as unconstitutional.
But Pennsylvania has notably stayed out of those lawsuits, with a new GOP attorney general who has a conservative view of the office and a chief priority of enforcing state laws.
Sunday, Pennsylvania’s Republican attorney general, who was sworn in last month, said in a statement that Shapiro requested that the attorney general’s office delegate the case to the governor after Sunday did not sue, as is allowed under state law. Sunday said his office granted the request because of Shapiro’s familiarity with the state agencies that have not received the disputed funds.
“My office is taking a deliberate and calculated approach in response to recent federal orders and actions,” Sunday added. “I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law, and that these matters will be resolved by the courts and that Pennsylvania will be incorporated in those court proceedings.”
Shapiro previously vowed to work with Trump but promised to challenge any efforts to infringe on residents’ rights. And his decision to step over Sunday to sue the Trump administration marks a significant development in how Shapiro will navigate a second Trump term.
While some Democrats, including Philadelphia State Sens. Vince Hughes and Christine Tartaglione, praised Shapiro’s suit, at least one Republican member of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation criticized the move.
“The Trump administration’s funding pause is entirely legal and an absolutely necessary action to ensure taxpayer dollars serve America’s real priorities — not the left’s extreme agenda,” said U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R., Pa.), who told The Inquirer in December he was considering running for governor in 2026.
Shapiro did not sue Trump himself. Rather, the lawsuit names several secretaries of agencies that he alleges have failed to release funds to Pennsylvania, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. The lawsuit also names Russell Vought, an architect of the controversial Project 2025 and the new secretary of the Office of Management and Budget, which originally issued the White House’s now-rescinded memorandum to freeze federal funds until they are reviewed to be in line with certain executive orders.
Shapiro is asking for a judge to rule that the Trump administration’s failure to release federal funds to the state is unconstitutional, to block the administration from doing so again, and to cover the state’s attorneys’ fees.
Gillian McGoldrick: I write about Pennsylvania's state government and how it impacts the lives of its residents.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSH SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUG BURGUM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE ZELDIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRIS WRIGHT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; AND RUSSELL VOUGHT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-763 Filed 02/13/25
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Congress has authorized and appropriated billions of dollars for programs that are currently being carried out across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth’s executive branch relies on these funds to provide essential services to people across Pennsylvania.
2. For example, one current federal grant program provides Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) more than $3 billion over 15 years to meet the multi-billion dollar need to repair abandoned mine lands (meaning former sites of ore and mineral mining) throughout Pennsylvania and the waterways impacted by those former mine sites. Abandoned mine lands can cause land to cave in, which can be—and in recent months has been—fatal. Proactively repairing abandoned mine lands and responding to emergencies they cause is a critical public safety service. This grant funding would allow for reclamation of around 24,000 acres of abandoned mine land, for construction or maintenance of 16 water treatment systems that deal with toxic runoff from abandoned mines, and for responding to about 60 emergency events per year.
3. PaDEP also currently has about $76 million of federal funding available to plug abandoned oil and gas wells, which are both a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and possible sources of gas migrations that can cause explosions. That funding will allow the Commonwealth to plug over 500 abandoned wells.
4. Two more grant programs allocate about $126 million each to Pennsylvania for programs that will allow up to 28,000 low-income households to perform work on their homes that will lower their utility bills.
5. The Pennsylvania agencies that run these programs have entered into agreements with their federal partners that obligate those funds to Pennsylvania and define the terms of the money’s use.
6. Nevertheless, federal agencies are now unilaterally and arbitrarily suspending or restricting Commonwealth agencies’ access to the congressionally appropriated grant funds that that have been committed to them.
7. Since around January 27, 2025, federal agencies have restricted Pennsylvania agencies’ ability to access funding for grant programs that, in total, obligated over $3.1 billion to Pennsylvania for fiscal years 2022 to 2026. In addition to funding for the programs described above (and many more), these include around $800 million in funding authorized and appropriated for Pennsylvania to provide grants for investment in clean water infrastructure, nearly $400 for a program that would allow manufacturing and industrial companies throughout Pennsylvania to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions, and tens of millions for a program that supports resilient and reliable electric service in rural communities.
8. Pennsylvania agencies have over $2.5 billion remaining under grant programs that are now suspended or for which reimbursement of authorized expenses now requires some federal agency review that is not contained within the terms of Congress’ statutes or any funding agreements, and which has not been described to Commonwealth agencies. Over $1 billion of the $2.5 billion of available money has already been obligated, including to subrecipients performing work under the various grants now at risk.
9. In addition, about $2.69 billion has been appropriated to Pennsylvania for fiscal years 2027 to 2037 for the currently suspended abandoned mine program. In all, then, federal agencies’ recent funding suspensions have jeopardized at least $5.5 billion that has been committed to Pennsylvania.
10. Governor Josh Shapiro and members of Pennsylvania’s agencies have been working with federal partners and legislators to try to fully restore access to these funds. Despite that work, and despite two temporary restraining orders requiring federal agencies to restore access to suspended funds, federal agencies continue to deny Pennsylvania agencies funding that they are entitled to receive.
11. So, Governor Shapiro and several Pennsylvania executive agencies now seek relief from the federal agencies’ flagrantly lawless actions.
12. Indeed, in executing the ongoing funding suspensions, federal agencies have asserted the power to suspend and restrict access to appropriated money without regard for whether they have any legal authority to do so. Rather, federal agencies have restricted Pennsylvania’s ability to use appropriated and obligated funds merely when agencies believe that President Trump dislikes the purpose of Congress’s appropriation.
13. Of course, no statute, regulation, or anything else gives any federal agency power to unilaterally refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds that have already been committed to Pennsylvania merely because the agency (or even the President) has policy disagreements with the appropriations Congress has made.
14. Here, the federal agency defendants have not only exceeded any legitimate authority, but they have also suspended access to billions in funding without supplying a plausible explanation as to why certain funds are being suspended, giving any consideration to the harm their action would cause, or considering how Commonwealth agencies have relied on receiving that committed funding.
15. Unilaterally suspending funds as federal agencies have done also violates the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution empowers agencies—nor the President—to arrogate to themselves the power to suspend states’ access to money that Congress appropriated or to impose new conditions on money already appropriated and obligated. In fact, the Constitution specifically requires otherwise.
16. Governor Shapiro and the Commonwealth agencies bring this action to restore law and order by preventing the federal agency defendants from violating statutes under which billions in federal funds have been authorized, appropriated, and obligated to Pennsylvania agencies. Clear and unequivocal judicial orders are necessary to remedy federal agencies’ unlawful conduct.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is also proper under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 702.
18. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (e)(1). Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities. A substantial part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred and continue to occur within this district.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
19. Josh Shapiro is the Governor of Pennsylvania. He brings this case in his official capacity.
20. The Pennsylvania Constitution vests “[t]he supreme executive power” in the Governor. Pa. Const. art. IV, § 2.
21. The Governor oversees all executive agencies in Pennsylvania.
22. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) is an executive agency within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 71 P.S. § 510-1.
23. The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PaDCNR) is an executive agency within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 71 P.S. § 1340.301.
24. The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (PaDCED) is an executive agency within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 71 P.S. § 1709.301.
25. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is an executive agency within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 71 P.S. § 511.
B. Defendants
26. Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency within the executive branch of the United States government.
27. Defendant Lee Zeldin is the Administrator of the EPA, and that agency’s highest ranking official. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is a cabinet agency within the executive branch of the United States government. 43 U.S.C. § 1451.
29. Defendant Doug Burgum is the Secretary of DOI, and that agency’s highest ranking official. 43 U.S.C. § 1451. He is sued in his official capacity.
30. Defendant U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cabinet agency within the executive branch of the United States government. 42 U.S.C. § 7131.
31. Defendant Chris Wright Kolb is the Secretary of DOE, and that agency’s highest ranking official. He is sued in his official capacity. 42 U.S.C. § 7131.
32. Defendant U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is a cabinet agency within the executive branch of the United States government. 49 U.S.C. § 102.
33. Defendant Sean Duffy is the Secretary of U.S. DOT, and that agency’s highest ranking official. He is sued in his official capacity. 49 U.S.C. § 102.
34. Defendant the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is office within the Executive Office of the President. OMB is responsible for oversight of federal agencies’ performance and the administration of the federal budget. 31 U.S.C. § 501.
35. Defendant Russell Vought is the Director of OMB, and that agency’s highest ranking official. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS
36. Since taking office, President Trump and his Administration have issued a slew of directives that federal agencies immediately pause the disbursement of money that Congress has appropriated, and which in many cases has subsequently been obligated to Commonwealth agencies.
37. The various directives have been vague, beyond any statutory or constitutional authority, and the cause of immediate harm.
38. The agencies implementing these directives have done so arbitrarily and without authority.
A. President Trump’s Executive Orders
39. The day he was inaugurated, President Trump signed several executive orders (EOs).
40. Unleashing American Energy was among the day-one EOs.
41. In that order, the President directed that “All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), including but not limited to funds for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program.” EO 14154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025).
42. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2022, appropriated $891 billion in spending over the following decade.
43. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which was enacted in 2021, appropriated $1.2 trillion.
44. Since each statute was passed, federal agencies have disbursed billions of dollars to states, including Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania agencies have executed funding or grant agreements that govern the terms under which the state agencies are receiving and may use the federally appropriated funds.
45. Ordering that all funding appropriated through these two statutes be paused caused immediate harm to Commonwealth agencies, as well as their subrecipients.
46. Specifically, Commonwealth agencies cannot draw from federal accounts, which means that agencies are stuck incurring debts and obligations in ongoing projects that cannot be reimbursed. While agencies have some reserves and discretionary dollars to cover small unexpected debts, the scope of the federal freeze will far exceed those reserves.
47. With respect to subrecipients of IRA and IIJA grants, Commonwealth agencies find themselves in an untenable position. Grant subrecipients are performing in accordance with the existing terms of their agreements with the state, which were executed in accordance with federal law. Yet, federal agencies are threatening not to reimburse Commonwealth agencies if the federal agency does not support some activity of the subrecipient. The Commonwealth thus either violates its obligations to subrecipients by withholding money, or it risks being denied reimbursement later by the federal government.
48. The day after the Unleashing American Energy EO was signed, OMB’s Acting Director published a memo (called OMB Memorandum M-25-11) asserting that the funding pause ordered under that EO “only applies to funds supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated by the policy established in Section 2 of the [executive] order.”1
49. Section 2 of that EO vaguely announced several broad policy ambitions of the new presidential administration. Relevant here, those include: (1) encouraging energy exploration on federal land and water; (2) establishing the United States as a leading producer of non-fuel minerals; (3) ensuring an abundant energy supply; (4) eliminating “the electric vehicle mandate”; and (5) promoting consumer choice generally and specifically with respect to appliances.
50. Other EOs similarly sought to withhold, or condition, disbursement of federal money appropriated by Congress. An EO called Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing directed that each federal agency head shall, among other things, terminate “all ‘equity action plans,’ ‘equity’ actions, initiatives, or programs, ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts.” EO 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025).
51. In an EO called Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, President Trump directed that every contract or grant award include a term requiring the recipient to certify that they do not operate any programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. EO 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 21, 2025).
52. An EO called Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government required that “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.” EO 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025).
B. OMB Directives and Agency Funding Suspensions
53. Following release of these EOs, Commonwealth agencies started receiving communication from federal agencies about their plans to implement the EOs.
54. Late on January 27, 2025, Commonwealth agencies learned that the OMB Acting Director had sent a directive (called OMB Memorandum M-25-13) to the head of every federal executive department and agency regarding a “Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.”
55. The OMB directive stated that “Career and political appointees in the Executive Branch have a duty to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities.”
56. It continued that “Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again.” The OMB directive did not define what “stronger and safer America,” “wokeness,” “weaponization,” “efficiency,” or “Making America Health Again” mean.
57. Conversely, the directive claimed, federal resources should not be used “to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.” The OMB directive did not define what any of these terms mean.
58. The Acting Director directed that all federal agencies review federal financial assistance programs to ensure that they are consistent with presidential policies. In the interim, all agencies were instructed that they “must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
59. The OMB directive did not cite a legal basis to pause any obligation or disbursement of federal funds, let alone a basis to pause all of them.
60. The pause was to be effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM.
61. That next day, OMB issued a question-and-answer document, an inadequate attempt to clarify its January 27 directive.
62. That Q&A document stated that the pause is “limited to programs, projects, and activities implicated by the President’s Executive Orders, such as ending DEI, the green new deal, and funding nongovernmental organizations that undermine the national interest.”
63. At the same time OMB issued its directive and subsequent Q&A document, federal agencies started communicating that disbursement of certain federal funds would be paused.
64. On January 27, 2025, Commonwealth agencies received a memo from DOE stating, “DOE is moving aggressively to implement” President Trump’s Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing EO by directing the suspension of DEI activities, community benefits plans, and Justice40 Requirements authorization under “any loans, loan guarantees, grants, cost sharing agreements, contracts, contract awards, or any other source.” DOE’s memo did not identify what programs, activities, contracts, or loans would be terminated. Nor did it identify any legal authority.
65. On January 28, 2025, PaDEP received an email from [email protected] stating that, “EPA is working diligently to implement President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy Executive Order issued on January 20 in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. The agency has paused all funding actions related to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act at this time. EPA is continuing to work with OMB as they review processes, policies, and programs, as required by the Executive Order.” The email did not identify what funding related actions would be paused. Nor did it identify any legal authority.
66. PENNVEST, Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure Investment Authority, received a memo from the EPA dated January 27, 2025, that stated “unobligated funds (including unobligated commitments) appropriated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) are paused.” The memo also stated that “all disbursements for unliquidated obligations funded by any line of accounting including funds appropriated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), are paused.” The memo did not identify what specific funds would be paused. Nor did it identify any legal authority.
67. On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to recipients of grant awards from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention stating that grant recipients must terminate all activity that promotes “‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) at every level and activity, regardless of your location or the citizenship of employees or contractors, that are supported with funds from this award. Any vestige, remnant, or re-named piece of any DEI programs funded by the U.S. government under this award are immediately, completely, and permanently terminated.” HHS’s letter did not identify what programs, activities, contracts, or loans would be terminated. Nor did it identify any legal authority.
68. On January 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Health received an email from the Health Resources & Services Administration, an agency within HHS, stating that “Effective immediately, HRSA grant funds may not be used for activities that do not align with Executive Orders (E.O.) entitled Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Action, Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, and Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Defending Women). Any vestige, remnant, or re-named piece of any programs in conflict with these E.O.s are terminated in whole or in part.” The email did not identify what programs, activities, contracts, or loans would be terminated. Nor did it identify any legal authority.
C. Litigation Over Federal Agencies’ Funding Suspension
69. Agencies’ freeze of federal funds were immediately the subject of two lawsuits.
70. In the first of those, an action that non-profit organizations filed against OMB, the District Court for the District of Columbia entered the following order shortly before the OMB memo’s January 28 at 5:00 PM deadline:
[ I]t is hereby ORDERED that an ADMINISTRATIVE STAY is entered in this case until 5:00 p.m. at February 3, 2025. During the pendency of the stay, Defendants shall refrain from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.
72. A few hours before a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order was set to begin, OMB released a new memo that purported to rescind Memorandum M-25-13.
73. But the Trump Administration quickly clarified that it rescinded only the memorandum and not the actual directive to pause federal funding. After the recission memo was released, President Trump’s Press Secretary tweeted that the recession memo was “NOT a recission of the federal funding freeze.” She added that “The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”2
74. The Press Secretary made clear that the rescission of the OMB directive was a clumsy attempt to circumvent federal district court orders. Her tweet stated the recission memo was meant to “end any confusion created by the [District of Columbia] court’s injunction.” Further, the Trump Administration later argued in Rhode Island district court that the challenge to federal policy was moot after the rescission because enjoining the memorandum was not the same as enjoining the policy set forth in the memorandum.
75. On January 31, the Rhode Island district court granted the States’ request for a temporary restraining order. That court noted that the Defendants identified no authority that allows them to unilaterally suspend the payment of federal funds, and that the Court was not aware of any. See Order at 5, New York v. Trump, No. 25-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025) (ECF No. 50). Further, the Court concluded, imposing conditions on appropriated funds that are beyond what Congress has authorized is contrary to law. Id.
76. After concluding that withholding money from States inflicts irreparable harm, the Court entered a temporary restraining order stating, “Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.” Id.at 11.
77. On February 3, 2025, Commonwealth agencies started receiving a notice of the temporary restraining order from federal agencies. That notice was drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice for federal agencies.
78. The notice stated that “Federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” The notice added that the prohibition “applies to all awards or obligations—not just those involving the Plaintiff States in the above-referenced case—and also applies to future assistance (not just current or existing awards or obligations).”
79. Yet, the notice also stated that “Agencies may exercise their own authority to pause awards or obligations, provided agencies do so purely based on their own discretion—not as a result of the OMB Memo or the President’s Executive Orders—and provided the pause complies with all notice and procedural requirements in the award, agreement, or other instrument relating to such a pause.”
81. That court concluded the executive branch’s immediate suspension of money that Congress had appropriated was likely arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional. Id. at 23-26.
82. The order entered in NCN enjoined Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Id. at 29.
83. On February 7, 2025, Plaintiffs in New York v. Trump filed an emergency motion to enforce the temporary restraining order, supplying the court with evidence that defendants were not fully compliant with the clear terms of the restraining order. Motion, New York v. Trump, No. 25-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 7, 2025) (ECF No. 66). That motion was granted, with the court reiterating that defendants must immediately restore the states’ access to funds frozen or paused based on the OMB directive, President Trump’s EOs, or guidance and agency action implementing either. Order, New York v. Trump, No. 25-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 7, 2025).
84. On February 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a motion from defendants in New York v. Trump to enter an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal while defendants appealed the temporary restraining order and the order to enforce it. Order, New York v. Trump, No. 25-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2025).
D. Harm to Pennsylvania
85. Pennsylvania’s agencies receive billions in federal funding every year. For the 2023-24 state fiscal year, Pennsylvania agencies received about $46 billion, which was roughly 40% of the total revenue needed to operate Pennsylvania’s programs that year. For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, Pennsylvania agencies expect to receive about $49 billion, which likewise will be about 40% of the total revenue needed to operate Pennsylvania’s programs for the year.
86. Much of this money comes from grants awarded to Pennsylvania.
87. Congress authorizes, and appropriates money for, federal grants through its powers under the Appropriations and Spending Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
88. Congress can authorize, and appropriate funds for, different types of grants. As just some examples, Congress may create grants of a defined amount that every state is entitled to receive. Congress may also create “formula grants” through which Congress legislatively determines the formula it wants an agency to use to allocate appropriated funds among states. Congress also can create competitive grants in which an agency is afforded more discretion to identify grant recipients consistent with the factors Congress has identified.
89. For most federal grants, when a Commonwealth agency is to receive federal funds, the Commonwealth agency grantee enters a funding agreement with the federal agency grantor that commits the money to the Commonwealth agency and defines the terms and conditions for receipt and use of the funds. The grantee then begins performing, either by directly conducting work consistent with the agreement or by entering into subrecipient agreements with third parties who will perform consistent with the agreement.
90. Pennsylvania agency grantees typically access federal funding by incurring expenses authorized under the grant agreement and then seeking reimbursement from the federal agency grantor.
91. Pennsylvania agencies make frequent—typically weekly but sometimes daily—drawdowns from federal funds that have been awarded to them.
92. Shortly after OMB issued its January 27 memo, and even before that memo’s January 28, 2025, 5:00 PM deadline, Pennsylvania agencies were frozen out from nearly every platform used to drawn down committed federal funds.
93. Suspension of access was not limited to platforms for seeking reimbursement for expenses under a grant award, but also included platforms for accessing funding for some of the most essential programs, such as Medicaid and Head Start.
94. Once OMB released its January 28 Q&A document, certain accounts that the Commonwealth accesses to receive federal funds obligated to it slowly reopened to Pennsylvania agencies. Many, however, including accounts for more than a dozen grant programs authorized under the IIJA or IRA, remained frozen.
95. A few more accounts that Commonwealth agencies access to seek reimbursement for authorized expenses became available after temporary restraining order were entered in the District of Rhode Island and the District of the District of Columbia.
96. But even after those orders were entered, access to the reimbursement platform for other grant accounts remained suspended.
97. Still more accounts included a note on the reimbursement platform that any requests for reimbursement of authorized expenses were subject to further agency review. This appears to be a funding freeze by a different name. Despite the appearance of those notes, in no case has a federal agency communicated with a Commonwealth agency to report that reimbursements requests for certain grant programs will be subject to further agency review, what that further review entails, or why certain programs now require further review before reimbursements are paid.
98. After January 27, 2025, congressionally appropriated funds that have been obligated to Pennsylvania agencies, totaling at least $3.36 billion, were frozen or marked as subject to undescribed further agency review.
99. As of February 13, 2025, by which point the federal agency defendants’ funding suspensions were already subject to two temporary restraining orders, Commonwealth agencies still had funding over $1.2 billion in grant funding suspended, and more than $900 million in granting funding that is now marked as requiring further (but unarticulated) federal agency review before reimbursement requests can be approved.
100. Much of the affected grant funding was appropriated under either the IIJA or IRA.
101. Commonwealth agencies have entered funding agreements with federal agencies that govern the term and conditions of the Commonwealth agency’s receipt and use of federal grant funds.
102. Further, Commonwealth agencies have spent months preparing to apply for and implement each grant award. In many cases, the Commonwealth agency has executed an agreement for a subaward. For example, of the $156 million Solar for All grant, an agreement is in place with the Philadelphia Green Capital Corporation to subaward about $70 million.
103. Many of these grant programs have deadlines by which Commonwealth agencies must use their grant award.
104. As one example of a now suspended account, the IIJA appropriated $11.2 billion to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. See 30 U.S.C. § 1231a(a). By statute, that money “shall be used to provide, as expeditiously as practicable, to States and Indian Tribes described in paragraph (2) annual grants for abandoned mine land and water reclamation projects.” Id. § 1231a(b)(1).
105. The IIJA directed that the Secretary of the Interior “shall allocate and distribute amounts made available for grants under subsection (b)(1) to States and Indian Tribes on an equal annual basis over a 15-year period beginning on November 15, 2021, based on the number of tons of coal historically produced in the States or from the applicable Indian land before August 3, 1977.” Id. § 1321a(d)(1).
106. Consistent with what the IIJA requires, Pennsylvania, through PaDEP, receives an annual grant of roughly $245 million from DOI and will do so until 2037.
107. This money funds work needed to reclaim abandoned mine land, which Pennsylvania has more of than any other state in the country. When abandoned mine land is left unaddressed it can, among other things, cave in, causing injury and even death and ruining property, including homes, that may be near an abandoned mine. This money also funds work to address acid mine drainage, which occurs when heavy metal leach from mines into waterways.
108. PaDEP’s access to these annual grant awards was suspended after January 27, 2025.
109. DOI has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to suspend access to these appropriated and obligated funds. DOI did not state that it was suspending funds under any statutory authority or other legal authority.
110. As another example, the IRA appropriated $4.75 billion for the Administrator of the EPA to award competitive grants to state entities to implement plans to reduce greenhouse gas air pollution. 42 U.S.C. § 7437(a)(2), (c).
111. The IRA also appropriated $250 million to the EPA to fund the costs incurred to develop the implementation plan. Id. § 7437(a)(1), (b).
112. PaDEP received $3 million as a planning grant and, in July 2024, was awarded a $396 million implementation grant for its plan to create a statewide industrial decarbonization program.
113. PaDEP has entered funding agreements with the EPA that govern these grant awards.
114. After January 27, 2025, PaDEP’s access to both the $3 million planning grant and the $396 million implementation grant was suspended.
115. EPA has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to suspend access to these appropriated and obligated funds. EPA did not state that it was suspending funds under any statutory authority or other legal authority.
116. As another example, the IIJA created a program for plugging, remediating, and restoring orphaned well sites around the country. See 42 U.S.C. § 15907. Orphaned wells are unproductive oil and gas wells that are a significant source of toxic emissions, including methane emissions.
117. Congress appropriated $4.675 billion to DOI to allocate for well plugging programs created under the IIJA. Id.§ 15907(h)(1).
118. That included $2 billion to be provided as grants consistent with a formula created under the IIJA. Id. § 15907(h)(1)(C). That formula requires that the Secretary of Interior make grant awards based on a formula that considers oil and gas industry job losses and the number of documented orphaned wells in a state. Id. § 15907(c)(4)(A)(iii).
119. PaDEP was awarded over $260 million under this program. DOI already has authorized PaDEP to use more than $100 million of that funding, of which about $76 million remains available for PaDEP to obligate in support of its well plugging programs.
120. After January 27, 2025, PaDEP’s ability to submit reimbursements for authorized uses of this available grant funding became subject to DOI’s undefined further review. DOI has not indicated what it will be reviewing for or how quickly it will review and approve reimbursement of PaDEP’s lawful costs, if DOI will do so at all.
121. DOI has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to unilaterally restrict, or impose new conditions on, PaDEP’s ability to be reimbursed for authorized expenses incurred against these appropriated and obligated funds. DOI has not stated it is imposing new conditions on PaDEP’s use of money for this grant award under any statutory authority.
122. By conditioning, and possibly freezing access to appropriated and obligated funding, DOI has jeopardized work that is necessary to, for example, eliminate toxic emissions that result from unplugged and unproductive oil and gas well and to curtail stray gas from migrating into private homes and water wells, which risks home explosions.
123. Similarly, after January 27, 2025, DOE subjected two grants DEP received (each for about $127 million) for improving energy efficiency in low-income homes to unidentified agency review before DOE will approve reimbursement claims. DOE did the same with a $186 million grant that the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (PaDCED) received for its weatherization assistance program, which helps low-income families perform work on their home that reduced energy costs.
124. DOE has not indicated what it will be reviewing for or how quickly it will review and approve reimbursement of either PaDEP’s or PaDCED’s lawful costs, if DOE will do so at all.
125. DOE has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to unilaterally impose new conditions on PaDEP’s or PaDCED’s ability to be reimbursed for authorized expenses incurred against these appropriated and obligated funds. DOE has not stated it is imposing new conditions on PaDEP’s or PaDCED’s use of money for this grant award under any statutory authority.
126. As another example, when Congress passed the IIJA, it appropriated the following amounts to each of the Safe Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: $2.4 billion for fiscal year 2022; $2.75 billion for fiscal year 2023; $ 3 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $3.25 billion for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026. Additional funds were appropriated to each revolving fund to address emerging water contaminants.
127. These appropriations are for investments in infrastructure needed to provide Americans access to safe, clean, and healthy water. Congress has authorized use of these funds and defined how they should be allotted among states. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1384, 1385, 1389; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300j-12(a)(1)(D)-(E), (h).
128. PENNVEST, which is the Pennsylvania entity responsible for administering such capitalization grants for Pennsylvania, has entered funding agreements with the EPA for its allotment of these appropriations.
129. After January 27, 2025, EPA suspended PENNVEST’s ability to access about $803 million in available funds from these capitalization grants for fiscal years 2020 through 2024.
130. The EPA has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to suspend access to these appropriated and obligated funds. EPA has not stated it is suspending funds under any statutory authority.
131. The EPA has also suspended, or conditioned use of, grant awards made to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PaDCNR). The EPA has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to suspend access to funds appropriated by Congress and obligated to PaDCNR. The EPA did not state that it was suspending funds under any statutory authority or other legal authority.
132. U.S. DOT has also suspended, or conditioned use of, grant awards made to PennDOT. U.S. DOT has not identified, and does not possess, any authority to suspend access to funds appropriated by Congress and obligated to PennDOT. U.S. DOT did not state that it was suspending funds under any statutory authority or other legal authority.
133. If the federal agency defendants’ suspension of federal funds continues, Pennsylvania could be required to furlough employees across state agencies. A furloughed employee could be rehired later, but he or she might seek alternative new employment, causing Pennsylvania to permanently lose the benefit of that employee’s service.
134. Commonwealth agencies have been contacted by subgrantees and contractors who have stated they will not continue performing work under the terms of their agreement unless it is certain that the federal government will fulfill its obligations to provide funding.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I – Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Contrary to Law
135. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
136. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court shall hold unlawful agency action that is “not in accordance with law,” “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” or is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(C).
137. Defendants are agencies under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).
138. Executive agencies must follow the laws that govern their conduct and may not engage in any conduct not authorized by law.
139. Congress has authorized and appropriated funds, including under the IRA and IIJA, that have since been obligated to the Commonwealth agencies.
140. Defendant agencies possess no authority to refuse to disburse funds authorized and appropriated by Congress and obligated to Pennsylvania agencies.
141. Defendant agencies possess no authority to terminate funding agreements with Pennsylvania agencies for reasons not identified in statute or a funding agreement between the federal and state agencies.
142. Defendant agencies possess no authority to impose new conditions on funds that already have been obligated to Pennsylvania agencies beyond the conditions that exist under statute or the existing funding agreement.
143. Defendant agencies’ duty is to execute the laws that Congress has passed, including laws appropriating funds, rather than amend or repeal them.
144. By refusing to disburse congressionally authorized and appropriated funds that have been obligated to the Commonwealth agencies, the Defendant agencies are acting in violation of the law.
Count II – Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Arbitrary and Capricious
145. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
146. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a reviewing court shall hold unlawful agency action that is “arbitrary” or “capricious.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
147. Agency action is arbitrary or capricious where it is not “reasonable and reasonably explained.” Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 U.S. 279, 292 (2024). This standard requires that agencies provide “a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Id.
148. The pause of the disbursement of federal money is arbitrary and capricious.
149. Defendant agencies are withholding federal money that Congress has authorized and appropriated and which has been obligated to Commonwealth agencies without providing any discernable standard or reasonable basis by which the decisions to freeze the disbursement of federal funds are being made.
150. The EOs that the Defendant agencies have referenced in support of their withholding funds cannot modify the statutory requirement to disburse already obligated funds nor amend the conditions under which funds have already been awarded to Commonwealth agencies.
151. The EOs that Defendant agencies have referenced in support of their withholding funds do not provide a reasoned standard for why or when agencies should refuse to disburse appropriated, obligated funds.
152. Defendant agencies’ decisions to immediately suspend billions of dollars in federal funds committed to Pennsylvania failed to consider reliance interests Pennsylvania’s agencies have in receiving those funds or the harm caused by such suspensions.
153. Additionally, subjecting disbursement of appropriated, obligated funds to unspecified and indeterminate agency review is arbitrary and capricious.
154. By refusing to disburse congressionally appropriated funds that have since been obligated to the Commonwealth agencies, without any reasoned standard for their decisions, the Defendant agencies are acting arbitrarily and capriciously.
Count III – Unconstitutional Withholding of Funds
155. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
156. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the President’s and the Executive Branch’s duty to “take Care that the laws by faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. Of course, the laws that must be faithfully executed are those that have “passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and then “presented to the President of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 7.
157. Where Congress passes a law through its power under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, any conditions it imposes on the receipt of federal funds must be “unambiguous[]” and cannot “surprise[] participating States with post acceptance or ‘retroactive’ conditions.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 25 (1981).
158. Once a State has accepted funds pursuant to a federal spending program, the Federal government cannot alter the conditions attached to those funds so significantly as to “accomplish[ ] a shift in kind, not merely degree.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583-84 (2012). Further, whatever conditions Congress imposes on the receipt of funding funds must be “reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 172 (1992) (citing Mass. v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978)).
159. Neither the President nor any executive branch agency has the power to unilaterally enact, amend, or repeal any statute. That is as true of a statute appropriating funds as it is any other statute.
160. New conditions may not be added to the receipt of federal funds after a state has already accepted those funds. Nor can federal funds be terminated for reasons not specifically articulated by law or in a funding agreement entered into by state and federal agencies.
161. The President and executive branch agencies have an obligation to execute the laws that have been properly enacted.
162. Defendant agencies’ withholding of appropriated, obligated funds violates these fundamental constitutional tenets and is therefore unconstitutional.
163. By seeking to impose new conditions on funds that have already been appropriated and obligated to the Commonwealth agencies, and by terminating federal funds for reasons not clearly articulated in statute or at the time Commonwealth agencies received funds, Defendant agencies have violated the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully ask that this Court enter the following relief:
a. Declare that Defendant agencies’ implementation of President Trump’s executive orders, or of OMB’s directives implementing those executive orders, by withholding congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies is contrary to law;
b. Declare that Defendant agencies’ withholding of congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies is contrary to law;
c. Declare that Defendant agencies’ implementation of President Trump’s executive orders, or of OMB’s directives implementing those executive orders, by withholding congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies is arbitrary and capricious;
d. Declare that Defendant agencies’ withholding of congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies is arbitrary and capricious;
e. Declare that Defendant agencies’ implementation of President Trump’s executive orders, or of OMB’s directives implementing those executive orders, by withholding congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies violates the U.S. Constitution;
f. Declare that Defendant agencies’ withholding of congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies violates the U.S. Constitution;
g. Enjoin the Defendant agencies from freezing, pausing, conditioning, or otherwise interfering with, the disbursement of any congressionally appropriated funds that have been obligated to the Pennsylvania agencies where Defendant agencies have no specific statutory to do so;
h. Award plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as appropriate; and
i. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
February 13, 2025
Respectfully submitted, s/ Jacob B. Boyer Jacob B. Boyer (Pa. No. 324396) Michael J. Fischer (Pa. No. 322311) Stephen R. Kovatis (Pa. No. 209495) Office of General Counsel 30 North Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 [email protected] (717) 460-6786 Counsel for Plaintiffs _______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAI’I; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; and STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his Official Capacity as President of the United States; U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; MATTHEW J. VAETH, in his Official Capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; PATRICIA COLLINS, in her Official Capacity as Treasurer of the U.S.; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; DOROTHY A. FINK, M.D., in her Official Capacity As Acting Secretary Of Health And Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENISE CARTER, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Education; U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CAMERON HAMILTON, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JUDITH KALETA, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VINCE MICONE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; INGRID KOLB, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JAMES PAYNE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JAMES R. McHENRY III, in his Official Capacity as Acting Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice; THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; and DR. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, in his Capacity as Director of the National Science Foundation,
Defendants.
Case 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS Document 50 Filed 01/31/25
The Executive’s statement that the Executive Branch has a duty “to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities,” (ECF No. 48-1 at 11) (emphasis added) is a constitutionally flawed statement. The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through “Presidential priorities.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 3 (establishing that the Executive must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .”)
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The legal standard for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) mirrors that of a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff States must show that weighing these four factors favors granting a TRO:
1. likelihood of success on the merits;
2. potential for irreparable injury;
3. balance of the relevant equities; and
4. effect on the public interest if the Court grants or denies the TRO.
Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981). The traditional equity doctrine that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of right guides the Court. Id. The Court is also fully aware of the judiciary’s role as one of the three independent branches of government, and that the doctrine of separation of powers restricts its reach into the Executive Branch. The Court now turns to the four factors.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
We begin with what courts have called a key factor—a consideration of the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits.
In Count I, the States allege that the Executive’s actions by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”)1 violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)2 because Congress has not delegated any unilateral authority to the Executive to indefinitely pause all federal financial assistance without considering the statutory and contractual terms governing these billions of dollars of grants.
In Count II, the States allege that the Executive’s actions violate the APA because the failure to spend funds appropriated by Congress is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects.
In Count III, the States allege that the failure to spend funds appropriated by Congress violates the separation of powers because the Executive has overridden Congress’ judgments by refusing to disburse already-allocated funding for many federal grant programs.
In Count IV, the States allege a violation of the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. law 1.
And in Count V, the States allege a violation of the presentment (U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2), appropriations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 7), and take care clauses (U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 3) (the Executive must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .”).
Because of the breadth and ambiguity of the “pause,” the Court must consider the States’ TRO motion today based on the effect it will have on many—but perhaps not all—grants and programs it is intended to cover. Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take? The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous “pause” of critical funding that are not. The Court must act in these early stages of the litigation under the “worst case scenario” because the breadth and ambiguity of the Executive’s action makes it impossible to do otherwise.
The Court finds that, based on the evidence before it now, some of which is set forth below, the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims. The reasons are as follows:
• The Executive’s action unilaterally suspends the payment of federal funds to the States and others simply by choosing to do so, no matter the authorizing or appropriating statute, the regulatory regime, or the terms of the grant itself. The Executive cites no legal authority allowing it to do so; indeed, no federal law would authorize the Executive’s unilateral action here.
• Congress has instructed the Executive to provide funding to States based on stated statutory factors—for example, population or the expenditure of qualifying State funds. By trying to impose certain conditions on this funding, the Executive has acted contrary to law and in violation of the APA.
• The Executive Orders threaten the States’ ability to conduct essential activities and gave the States and others less than 24 hours’ notice of this arbitrary pause, preventing them from making other plans or strategizing how they would continue to function without these promised funds.
• Congress appropriated many of these funds, and the Executive’s refusal to disburse them is contrary to congressional intent and directive and thus arbitrary and capricious.
• Congress has not given the Executive limitless power to broadly and indefinitely pause all funds that it has expressly directed to specific recipients and purposes and therefore the Executive’s actions violate the separation of powers.
Judge Bruce M. Selya of the First Circuit succinctly set out the black letter law about appropriated funds and Executive powers:
When an executive agency administers a federal statute, the agency’s power to act is “authoritatively prescribed by Congress.” City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 185 L. Ed. 2d 941 (2013). It is no exaggeration to say that “an agency literally has no power to act ... unless and until Congress confers power upon it.” La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374, 106 S. Ct. 1890, 90 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1986). Any action that an agency takes outside the bounds of its statutory authority is ultra vires, see City of Arlington, 569 U.S. at 297, 133 S. Ct. 1863, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
City of Providence v. Barr, 954 F.3d 23, 31 (1st Cir. 2020).
The Executive’s statement that the Executive Branch has a duty “to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities,” (ECF No. 48-1 at 11) (emphasis added) is a constitutionally flawed statement. The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through “Presidential priorities.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 3 (establishing that the Executive must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .”). Federal law specifies how the Executive should act if it believes that appropriations are inconsistent with the President’s priorities -- it must ask Congress, not act unilaterally. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the President may ask that Congress rescind appropriated funds.3 Here, there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called “pause.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote when he was on the D.C. Circuit:
Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2 U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Funds: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)
In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 261, n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive’s actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States.
The Court now moves on to the remaining three injunction considerations.
Irreparable Harm
The States have put forth sufficient evidence at this stage that they will likely suffer severe and irreparable harm if the Court denies their request to enjoin enforcement of the funding pause.
• All the States rely on federal funds to provide and maintain vital programs and services and have introduced evidence that the withholding of federal funds will cause severe disruption in their ability to administer such vital services–even if it is for a brief time.
• The States detail many examples of where the Executive’s overarching pause on funding that Congress has allocated will harm them and their citizens. These programs range from highway planning and construction, childcare, veteran nursing care funding, special education grants, and state health departments, who receive billions of dollars to run programs that maintain functional health systems. See, e.g., ECF No. 3-1 at 56 (highway construction programs in Delaware), at 73 (childcare programs in Michigan), at 113 (veterans nursing care funding in Washington state), at 77 (special education programs in Minnesota), and at 100–01 (health care programs in New Mexico).
• The pause in federal funding will also hurt current disaster relief efforts. The States assert that the pause applies to federal actions directing federal financial assistance to North Carolina to address the damage inflicted by Hurricane Helene and to any Federal Emergency Management Agency grant money not yet disbursed, including key support for California’s ongoing response to the fires. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 80–81.
• A January 28, 2025, email from Shannon Kelly, the Director of the National High Intensity Drug Case Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, who aids law enforcement in high drug-trafficking areas, shows that payments to state-based HIDTA programs have been paused, putting the public’s safety at risk. Id. ¶ 83.
The States have set forth facts showing that the Executive’s abrupt “pause” in potentially trillions of dollars of federal funding will cause a ripple effect that would directly impact the States and other’s ability to provide and administer vital services and relief to their citizens. Thus, the federal grants to States and others that are impounded through the Executive’s pause in disbursement will cause irreparable harm.
And it is more than monetary harm that is at stake here. As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, “Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers.”Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 449–50 (1998) (Kennedy, J. concurring)
Balance of the Equities and Public Interest
As the Court considers the final two factors, the record shows that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the States’ TRO.
• If the Defendants are prevented from enforcing the directive contained in the OMB Directive, they merely would have to disburse funds that Congress has appropriated to the States and others.
• On the other hand, if the Court denies the TRO, the funding that the States and others are presumably due under law is in an indefinite limbo—a hardship worsened by the fact that the States had less than 24 hours’ notice to act in anticipation of the funding shortfall.
• The fact that the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits strongly suggests that a TRO would serve the public interest. Moreover, the public interest further favors a TRO because absent such an order, there is a substantial risk that the States and its citizens will face a significant disruption in health, education, and other public services that are integral to their daily lives due to this pause in federal funding.
The evidence in the record at this point shows that, despite the rescission of the OMB Directive, the Executive’s decision to pause appropriated federal funds “remains in full force and effect.” ECF No. 44.
Mootness
The Defendants now claim that this matter is moot because it rescinded the OMB Directive. But the evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name-only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on.
Messaging from the White House and agencies proves the point. At 2:04 EST, less than an hour before the Court’s hearing on the States’ motion on Wednesday, the Defendants filed a Notice saying, “OMB elected to rescind that challenged Memorandum. See OMB Mem. M-25-14, Rescission of M-25-13 (Jan. 28, 2025) (‘OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded.’).” ECF No. 43. Yet about twenty minutes before the Defendants filed the Notice, the President’s Press Secretary sent a statement via the X platform that said: “The President’s [Executive Orders] EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.” ECF No. 44. And then the following day (January 30, 2025 at 7:50 MST and again at 5:27 p.m. EST) after the so-called rescission, the Environmental Protection Agency, in an email to federal grant recipients, said that the awarded money could not be disbursed while it worked “diligently to implement the [OMB] Memorandum, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs, to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through President Trump’s priorities. The agency is temporarily pausing all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of EPA Federal financial assistance at this time. EPA is continuing to work with OMB as they review processes, policies, and programs, as required by the memorandum.” ECF No. 48-1 at 6, 11.
Based on the Press Secretary’s unequivocal statement and the continued actions of Executive agencies, the Court finds that the policies in the OMB Directive that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States’ TRO motion are not moot.
Conclusion
Consistent with the findings above, and to keep the status quo, the Court hereby ORDERS that a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is entered in this case until this Court rules on the States’ forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction, which the States shall file expeditiously.
During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.
If Defendants engage in the “identif[ication] and review” of federal financial assistance programs, as identified in the OMB Directive, such exercise shall not affect a pause, freeze, impediment, block, cancellation, or termination of Defendants’ compliance with such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.
Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025. ECF No. 44.
Defendants’ attorneys shall provide written notice of this Order to all Defendants and agencies and their employees, contractors, and grantees by Monday, February 3, 2025, at 9 a.m. Defendants shall file a copy of the notice on the docket at the same time.
Defendants shall comply with all notice and procedural requirements in the award, agreement, or other instrument relating to decisions to stop, delay, or otherwise withhold federal financial assistance programs.
The TRO shall be in effect until further Order of this Court. A preliminary hearing, at which time the States will have to produce specific evidence in support of a preliminary injunction, will be set shortly at a day and time that is convenient to the parties and the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr. _________________________________ John J. McConnell, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island January 31, 2025 _______________
Notes:
1 See supra for discussion of mootness.
2 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
3 If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds the Executive is withholding must be made available for obligation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00039
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF TO ENFORCE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OF JANUARY 31, 2025, UPON EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION
PLAINTIFF STATES’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On January 31, 2025, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Defendants, including the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, the United States Office of Management and Budget, and the United States Treasury Department, from “reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant)” by any means, including through oblique means “such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.” TRO 12, ECF No. 50 (“Order”). Yet Plaintiff States and entities within the Plaintiff States continue to be denied access to federal funds.These denials continue to cause immediate irreparable harm as demonstrated in the temporary restraining order proceedings and will be further demonstrated in support of the Plaintiff States’ request for preliminary injunction, filed simultaneously with this motion. Jobs, lives, and the social fabric of life in the Plaintiff States are at risk from the disruptions and uncertainty that have continued now a full week after entry of the Order. As this Court noted, executive action that is “in name-only and may have” proceeded “simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts” weighs in favor of temporary but decisive action. Order, 10. Unfortunately, such action is once again necessary on an urgent basis.
The sands have only continued to shift since January 31. As explained below, there has been an ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more since entry of the Order. These conditions persist today. In particular, Defendants have—for the first time this week—taken the position that certain federal funds, including federal financial assistance under the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (“IIJA”), is outside the scope of the Court’s Order, a position contradicted by the plain text of the Order and the notice Defendants previously filed with the Court explaining their view of the scope of the Order. See Order 11-12.
And, while it is imaginable that a certain amount of machinery would need to be re-tooled in order to undo the breadth of the Federal Funding Freeze, there is no world in which these scattershot outages, which as of this writing impact billions of dollars in federal funding across the Plaintiff States, can constitute compliance with this Court’s Order. Defendants contemplated an all-of-government “pause” on federal funding could be implemented in the less than 24 hours between when the OMB Directive issued and when it took effect. Yet, as to a number of funding sources that provide critical services in Plaintiffs’ States, the situation has not changed at all nearly a week after the Court’s Order, which noted that “[t]he evidence in the record at this point shows that . . . the Executive’s decision to pause appropriated federal funds [for at least some federal programs] ‘remains in full force and effect.’” Order 10.
Defendants also seek resort to unspecified administrative and operational delays—but these are the delays the Defendants are enjoined from imposing. This Court should enforce the plain text of its temporary restraining order and order Defendants to immediately restore funds and desist from the federal funding pause until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided, a process which is proceeding expeditiously in separate proceedings before this Court.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Court Order
This Court’s Order restrained three types of conduct. First, Defendants shall “not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.” Order 11. Second, the Defendants shall not accomplish any of the listed prohibited activities during “‘identif[ication] and review’ of federal financial assistance programs, as identified in the OMB Directive.” Order 12. Third, the Federal Funding Freeze is not to be reinstituted under any name—Defendants are “restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant).” Id. Moreover, the Court required affirmative action of the Defendants—that is, if any grant needed to be stopped, delayed, or otherwise withheld in the regular order, Defendants are required to “comply with all notice and procedural requirements in the award, agreement, or other instrument” governing the federal financial assistance at issue. Id.
In addition, in recognition that the scope of the Federal Funding Freeze was vast, the Court ordered Defendants’ attorneys to “provide written notice of this Order to all Defendants and agencies and their employees, contractors, and grantees by Monday, February 3, 2025, at 9 a.m.” and file a copy with the Court at the same time. Id.
B. Defendants’ Subsequent Conduct
1. Notice of Court Order
Defendants filed the Notice of Court Order on Monday, February 3, 2025. In it, Defendants stated their understanding of the scope of the Court’s Order, telling all of their “employees, contractors, and grantees” that “Federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” Notice of Ct. Order 1, ECF No. 51-1. Defendants accompanied their filing of the Notice with a brief cover memorandum to the Court, which elaborated on their views that:
• the Order did not restrain the “President or his advisors from communicating with federal agencies or the public about the President’s priorities regarding federal spending.”
• the Order did not enjoin “the President’s Executive Orders, which are plainly lawful and unchallenged in this case.”
• the Order did not “impos[e] compliance obligations on federal agencies that are not Defendants in this case.”
2. Noncompliance with Court Order
Despite the Court’s order, Defendants have failed to resume disbursing federal funds in multiple respects.
IRA/IIJA funds. First, Defendants have failed to fully resume disbursing federal funds appropriated by the IRA and IIJA. Plaintiff States’ agencies that receive IRA/IIJA-appropriated funds under final grant agreements have been regularly refreshing federal payment portals—in particular, the Automated Standard Application for Payments (“ASAP”)—to check whether their grants have been restored. For some IRA/IIJA grants, grant accounts have reappeared over the course of the week in ASAP, and federal grantor agencies have communicated to the States that grant accounts are or will shortly be un-suspended. For other IRA/IIJA grants, as of the evening of Wednesday, February 5, grant accounts continue to be missing in ASAP and unavailable for drawing down disbursements; other grant accounts are still flagged as suspended or held “per executive order” or “for agency review.” In these cases, federal grantor agencies have replied to state agency inquiries with receipt-acknowledging non-answers or not replied at all—and often meetings with agency grant offices remain cancelled. The following grants are illustrative, although not exhaustive—many states have had these and other important grants frozen or paused:
• The Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program, administered by EPA and funded by a $5 billion IRA appropriation, supports States, tribes, and local governments in planning and implementing greenhouse-gas reduction measures. For example, the regional air district covering Los Angeles, California received a $500 million award, subject to a final grant agreement, to clean up the highly polluting goods movement corridor between the Imperial Valley’s logistics hubs and warehouses to the Port of Los Angeles. (Ex. 42 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 8.)1 As of February 5, this grant and other Climate Pollution Reduction Grants remained inaccessible in ASAP. (Ex. 42 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 8, 25; Ex. 28 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 8, 11, 18–19; Ex. 84 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 10, 11, 15; Ex. 106 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 41–44; Ex. 83 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 2, 25; Ex. 56 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 12; see also Ex. 20 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 19, 23 (as of Feb. 4); Ex. 44 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 35–36 (same); Ex. 49 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 19 (same); Ex. 97 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 4(B), 5, 14 (same); Ex. 61 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 8, 10 (same)).
• For sixty years, EPA has administered a national air monitoring network and research program under Clean Air Act sections 103 to 105. The IRA appropriated $117.5 million to fund air monitoring grants under this program to increase States’ abilities to detect dangerous pollution like particulate matter (soot) and air toxics, including in disadvantaged communities. These pollutants create a particular public health emergency in areas recovering from wildfires. As of February 5, air monitoring grants remained inaccessible in ASAP. (Ex. 28 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 7, 18-19; Ex. 97 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 12, 15; Ex. 42 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 12-13, 25; Ex. 84 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 12-13, 15; Ex. 106 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 58-71; Ex. 73 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 8; see also Ex. 23 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 12 (as of Feb. 4)).
• The IRA appropriates $4.5 billion to the Department of Energy for the Home Electrification and Appliances Rebates Program. The rebate program, administered by state energy offices under final federal grants, subsidizes low- and moderate-income households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters, electric heat pump space heating and cooling systems, and other home electrification projects. Thousands of homeowners across Plaintiff States have signed up for Plaintiff States’ programs, received approvals, and even started installation in reliance on these rebates, and are stuck paying their contractors an extra $8,000 if state energy offices cannot draw down funds. As of February 5, that remained the case: the home rebate grants are held “for agency review” in ASAP. (Ex. 40 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 8, 11, 37; Ex. 95 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 23, 37-40, 55; Ex. 20 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 6, 22 (as of Feb. 4); see also Ex. 108 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 33, 35; Ex. 85 to Thomas-Jensen Aff., Ex. J).
• The Solar for All program, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and funded by the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, awarded $7 billion to 60 grantees to install rooftop and community solar energy projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities. These awards—all with final grant agreements in place— support the construction of cheap, resilient power in underserved neighborhoods, and provide particular protection to communities in which wildfire risk regularly causes utilities to de-energize transmission lines. As of February 5, numerous Plaintiff States were unable to access their Solar For All grant accounts in ASAP. (Ex. 108 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 19–21 (Rhode Island); Ex. 44 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 14 (Connecticut); Ex. 52 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 12 (Hawai‘i); Ex. 73 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 8 (Michigan); Ex. 71 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 2, 7 (Maine); Ex. 85 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 5, 10 (New Jersey); Ex. 95 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 6, 55 (New York)). As of the time of filing, it appears that access in ASAP has at least begun to be restored in many of the Plaintiff States.
Other funds. Defendants have failed to follow the Court’s order with respect to other funds, too. On February 3, the National Institutes of Health abruptly cancelled an advisory committee review meeting with Brown University’s School of Public Health for a $71 million grant on dementia care research, saying “all federal advisory committee meetings had been cancelled.”2 Ex. February 5, still unable to access federal funds from the Department of Education. Ex. 111 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 5; Ex. 76 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 12. On February 5 and 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration renewed stop work orders to a University of Washington program doing global HIV prevention work. Decl. of Maya Beal (Feb. 7, 2025) ¶¶ 4, 10–11, 14–15, attached as Exhibit A. As Plaintiff States’ preliminary injunction motion details, since the entry of the Court’s Order, their agencies have received inconsistent guidance, cancelled and un-cancelled meetings, and inexplicably patchwork restorations of some grants but not others. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 18, 20, 21, 24, 32.
3. Attempts to Remedy
Plaintiff States attempted to remedy these issues on Wednesday, February 5, but were not successful. See Exhibits B and C. As part of that conferral process, Defendants have identified two grounds to excuse noncompliance.
First, in correspondence to Plaintiff State Oregon, Defendants explained that, in their view, certain IRA/IIJA funds lie outside the Order’s scope. Specifically, Defendants explained that such funding “was paused pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-25-11, which is not challenged in New York v. Trump and preceded issuance of the challenged OMB Memorandum M-25-13.” Exhibit B at 1.
As background, OMB Memorandum M-25-11 (“OMB Unleashing Guidance”), which predated the OMB Directive, instructed agencies that the “directive in section 7 of the Executive Order entitled Unleashing American Energy requires agencies to immediately pause disbursement of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) [(IRA)] or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) [(IIJA)],” but that pause applied only to “funds supporting the Green New Deal”—a term the OMB Unleashing Guidance defines as “supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated by the policy established in Section 2 of the order.” Ex. 13 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. The Guidance provides no further explanation of how federal agencies are to make that determination.
Defendants thus appear to now take the position that the “freeze” set out in the Unleashing Guidance is distinct from the “freeze” set out days later in the OMB Directive, and that they remain free to freeze funds pursuant to the Unleashing Guidance. That position would appear to allow Defendants to continue to freeze any funds under either the IIJA or IRA that the federal grantor agency might characterize as “supporting the Green New Deal.”3
Second, Defendants have taken the position that, as a categorical matter, “the mere fact of a pause in funding does not inherently violate the Court’s Order,” and that the payment delays and blockages the Plaintiff States have endured for the past week despite the Order are excusable because there “are operational and administrative reasons for payments taking longer than normal.” As discussed below, certain federal funding streams have resumed, and others have not; consequently, key programs are at risk in the Plaintiff States because of Defendants’ failure to timely comply with this Court’s Order.
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts may issue further orders to obtain “compliance with a court order.” United States v. Saccoccia, 433 F.3d 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949)). In the First Circuit, to remedy violations of court orders, there are four factors to satisfy: (1) notice of the court order; (2) clarity and unambiguity of the order; (3) ability to comply; and (4) violation of the order. Letourneau v. Aul, No. CV 14-421JJM, 2024 WL 1364340, at *2 (D.R.I. Apr. 1, 2024) (citing Hawkins v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 665 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2012)).
“[T]he ‘clear and unambiguous’ standard applies to the language of the relevant court order, not to its effectiveness.” Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Co., LLC v. Belesimo, No. CV 21-11398-DJC, 2022 WL 3227535, at *4 (D. Mass. May 17, 2022) (quoting Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Mgmt. Co., 290 F.3d 63, 76 (1st Cir. 2002)). When evaluating whether a court order is “clear and unambiguous,” the question is “not whether the order is clearly worded as a general matter.” Saccoccia, 433 F.3d at 28. Instead, the “clear and unambiguous” prong “requires that the words of the court’s order have clearly and unambiguously forbidden the precise conduct” giving rise to the need for enforcement. Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 424 (2d Cir. 2003)).
ARGUMENT
I. The Court Should Order Defendants to Immediately Restore Frozen Funding Pursuant to the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order.
Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that all four elements for further enforcement of the Order are met. Defendants had notice of the Order, the Order was clear and unambiguous, Defendants had the ability to comply with the Order, and Defendants have violated and continue to violate the Order. See Letourneau v. Aul, No. CV 14-421JJM, 2024 WL 1364340, at *2 (D.R.I. Apr. 1, 2024) (citing Hawkins v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 665 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2012)). There can be no dispute as to the first, third, and fourth elements. First, Defendants had notice of the Order, as they appeared at the hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, received the subsequent Order, filed the required Notice of the Order they intended to distribute to “all Defendants and agencies and their employees, contractors, and grantees,” Order 12, in fact distributed the Order, and have communicated with Plaintiffs about the Order.
Second, and as explained further below, the language applicable to Defendants’ assertions is plain and unambiguous and compels the result opposite from Defendants’ assertion. That is, the plain language of the Order sweeps in all incorporated articulations of the Federal Funding Freeze that are patent in the OMB Directive and the Order requires compliance without exception for administrative or operational difficulties, especially for any that extend a multiple of the length of time it took to implement the Federal Funding Freeze in the first instance.
Third, Defendants had the ability to comply with the Order. Simply put, because Defendants were able to cut off funding streams, they are equally able to turn those streams back on. Plaintiff States of course appreciate the need to allow Defendants a short period of time to operationalize the Order, but that time has long since passed. Defendants managed to implement widespread and disruptive funding freezes immediately after the OMB Directive was distributed, yet they have somehow now required a week or more to restore only some of the withheld funding. As described in Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 24–34, many of the programs for which funds were still frozen days after entry of the Order conspicuously mirror the President’s policy attacks on funding for environmental projects, foreign aid, university research, and services for low-income families. Defendants’ partial compliance demonstrates that they have the ability to fully comply, and the Order does not allow for selective compliance.
Fourth, Defendants have violated the Order. The evidence is overwhelming, as described supra Section B.2 and in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 24–34, that Plaintiff States continue to experience widespread disruption in funds without notice or other procedural requirements of the relevant award, agreement, or other instrument. Defendants appear to contend that their conduct is permissible under the Order. Supra Section B.3. But Defendants are wrong. Under the plain and unambiguous text of the Order, which bars Defendants from “implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants,” Defendants’ conduct violates the Order. Order 12.
A. The Order Plainly Encompasses Categorical Funding Freezes Tied to Executive Orders (Including the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order)
Defendants apparently take the position that they can implement at least one of the funding freezes called for by the “series of Executive Orders” issued by the President “during the initial days of his Administration,” including “Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025),” Ex. 9 to Thomas-Jensen Aff.. But the plain text of the Order does not allow for such an interpretation; “the words of the court’s order have clearly and unambiguously forbidden th[is] precise conduct.” United States v. Saccoccia, 433 F.3d 19, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (emphasis omitted) (citing Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 424 (2d Cir. 2003)).
The Order requires Defendants to cease “implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant).” Order 12 (emphasis added). The text of the Court’s Order must be read in conjunction with the substance of the OMB Directive, which required agencies to “implement” the Executive Orders issued by the President during the initial days of his administration by “temporarily paus[ing] all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” OMB Directive, Compl. Ex. A. Any categorical pause of obligations or disbursements to implement the Executive Orders is exactly “implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive.” Order 12.
The OMB Directive acknowledges that it is the implementation of prior action. In the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, the President announced a categorical, immediate, and indefinite pause on federal funds under the IRA and IIJA. Ex. 1 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. at 8353 Specifically, Section 7(a) of the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, entitled “Terminating the Green New Deal,” ordered all federal agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the [IRA] or the [IIJA].” Id. at 8357. The next day, OMB issued a memorandum clarifying that Section 7(a) of the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order only paused funding that the agencies identified as “Green New Deal” funding, i.e., “funds supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated” by a set of Executive Branch priorities on energy and environmental regulation announced in Section 2 of that Executive Order. Ex. 13 to Thomas-Jensen Aff.. The OMB Directive used equivalent language, express referencing the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order and announcing a categorical pause on disbursing “financial assistance for ... the green new deal.” Compl. Ex. A.
Defendants’ apparent argument that they are permitted to continue to freeze federal funds by reference to the Unleashing Guidance, as long as they do not formally do so pursuant to the OMB Directive, is unavailing. That an earlier directive also directed a categorical funding freeze does not alter or amend the text of this Court’s Order, which restrains Defendants from categorically freezing duly appropriated and obligated funds. After that Order, the OMB Directive may not be given effect, “under any other name or title.” Order 12. That “title” includes the OMB Unleashing Guidance. Indeed, Defendants’ own prior statements reflect that they previously understood the Court’s Order to have that effect: The Notice that Defendants circulated to federal employees and filed with this Court instructed employees not to “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” Notice of Ct. Order 1, ECF No. 51-1 (emphasis added). Neither that Notice nor the document that accompanied it to this Court identified a carveout for other memoranda or guidance documents that implemented functionally the same policy and with functionally the same effect. Indeed, Defendants’ prior, broader understanding of the Court’s Order is, as discussed supra Section B.1, the only plausible one, given that the Court specifically enjoined Defendants from carrying out the same policy “under any other name or title.”
Defendants’ multiple actions to pause IRA/IIJA funds implement the OMB Directive, even if those actions also were also consistent with the OMB Unleashing Guidance. For example, in Rhode Island, the first denial of the Solar for All grant fund drawdown request occurred on January 27, 2025, the same day OMB 25-13 was published. Ex. 108 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. at 14. And the account in the grants administration system was entirely suspended January 28, 2025, at 5:44pm. Id. at 17. Even if the initial draw was rejected as a result of the OMB Unleashing Guidance (and it is not clear that it was), the account suspension was clearly undertaken pursuant to the OMB Directive, going into effect right on time to meet the deadline articulated there. That account suspension, or the act taken pursuant to the OMB Directive, persisted as of February 5. Ex. 108 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶ 19. No explanation that the grant was out of compliance or authority for the suspension of the account was given. Similarly, EPA’s suspension of a Southern California air district’s $500 million award under the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program went into effect on January 28th precisely—that is, the grant account was available for disbursement on the morning of the 28th, but it disappeared the same afternoon—the day after the OMB Directive was published, but an entire week after OMB’s Unleashing Guidance. Ex. 42 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. ¶¶ 18–19 & Exs. B, C.
In addition, the President continued to order new extensions of the Federal Funding Freeze simultaneous with the OMB Directive taking effect. These Executive Orders are also covered by the Order. In an Executive Order issued January 28, the President ordered federal agencies “that provide[] research or education grants to medical institutions” to “take appropriate steps to ensure” (or, in other words, cut off vital funding) that those institutions immediately discontinue ongoing gender affirming care to existing minor patients and cease to serve minor patients. Ex. 8 to Thomas-Jensen Aff. § 4. That edict issued without regard to the harm to minor patients that would be inflicted by such a cessation or delay of care, in violation of settled law. This continued effort to, in concert with OMB, pause vital funding first without establishing any basis in law is similarly conduct prohibited by the Order.
As these facts demonstrate, Defendants now seek to dress up their actions taken as a result of the OMB Directive and the blanket command contained therein in a new guise. But doing that is what the Court has prohibited: Defendants may not “implement or give effect to” the commands of “the OMB Directive” even if “under any other name or title.” Ascribing action to an Executive Order or a prior Guidance when the action is squarely within scope of OMB 25-13 is giving effect to the OMB Directive under a different name.
B. The Plain Text of the Order Made No Provision for Day After Day of Administrative Pauses and Delays
The Defendants have responded to Plaintiff States’ alerts that some essential federal financial assistance is still inexplicably paused with empty assurances. When Plaintiff States raised examples of the continued freeze of federal financial assistance in the face of the Court’s order, counsel for Defendants suggested “operational and administrative reasons for payments taking longer than normal” as an explanation for days-long delays. Ex. C, 1. “Operational and administrative reasons” is a phrase so vague as to not be helpful at all in understanding whether the Defendants understand and intend to comply with the plain text of this Court’s Order. This is an essential quandary, because from the Plaintiff States’ perspective, the only evidence available is evidence of nonpayment. Defendants were instructed not to leave Plaintiff States in the dark, and in those limited exceptions where some sort of pause or freeze could be supported by applicable legal authority, Defendants must give the appropriate notice and procedural safeguards meant to prevent the disruption here. Order 12.
Without explanation or substantiation, “operational and administrative reasons” for lengthy delays in restoring funding is incredible, particularly given the speed and efficiency with which hundreds of funding streams were frozen in the immediate wake of the OMB Directive. When OMB issued the Directive in the evening on January 27, 2025, it required the temporary pause to “become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM.” Compl. Ex. A. Contemporaneous reporting and Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrate that funding shutoffs began almost immediately after the OMB Directive issued. It is inexplicable why the federal government, which apparently determined it feasible to pause almost all federal funding within 24 hours, has not universally restored access to funds after nearly a week. As explained in the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 34, even a momentary delay in the intricate accounting dance that underpins our cooperative federal system can result in failures to make payroll and the potential shuttering of programs and nonprofit entities that provide vital health and human services to the residents of the Plaintiff States.
Defendants’ assertion that “the mere fact of a pause in funding does not inherently violate the Court’s Order,” Ex. C, also cannot be squared with the plain text of the Order, which states that Defendants “shall not pause” federal financial assistance to the Plaintiff States. Order 11. Of course, as set forth in the Order, there could be an instance where a specific applicable statute, regulation or term of the grant allowed a pause—but in that case, the Defendants must “comply with all notice and procedural requirements in the award, agreement, or other instrument relating to decisions to stop, delay, or otherwise withhold federal financial assistance programs” before funding could be paused. Order 12. Across the Plaintiff States, there is no evidence that Defendants have made any attempt at this compliance as to the funding still paused.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided above, the Court should enforce the clear and unambiguous text of its temporary restraining order and order Defendants to immediately restore funds until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided. Plaintiff States do not request any sanction at this time. The Court should further Order that Defendants immediately take every step necessary to effectuate the Order, including clearing any administrative, operational, or technical hurdles to implementation. In addition, the Court should Order compliance with the plain text of the existing Order not to pause any funds on the basis of pronouncements pausing funding incorporated into the OMB Directive, like Section 7(a) of the Unleashing Executive Order and the OMB Unleashing Guidance.
Respectfully submitted,
February 7, 2025
PETER F. NERONHA Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island By: /s/ Kathryn M. Sabatini Kathryn M. Sabatini (RI Bar No. 8486) Civil Division Chief Special Assistant Attorney General Sarah W. Rice (RI Bar No. 10465) Deputy Chief, Public Protection Bureau Assistant Attorney General Leonard Giarrano IV (RI Bar No. 10731) Special Assistant Attorney General 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 (401) 274-4400, Ext. 2054 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York By: /s/ Rabia Muqaddam Rabia Muqaddam* Special Counsel for Federal Initiatives Michael J. Myers* Senior Counsel Molly Thomas-Jensen* Special Counsel Colleen Faherty* Special Trial Counsel Zoe Levine* Special Counsel for Immigrant Justice 28 Liberty St. New York, NY 10005 (929) 638-0447 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
ROB BONTA Attorney General for the State of California By: /s/ Laura L. Faer Laura L. Faer* Supervising Deputy Attorney General Christine Chuang* Supervising Deputy Attorneys General Nicholas Green* Carly Munson* Kenneth Sugarman* Christopher J. Kissel* Lara Haddad* Theodore McCombs* Deputy Attorneys General California Attorney General’s Office 1515 Clay St. Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 879-3304
ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts By: /s/ Katherine B. Dirks Katherine B. Dirks* Deputy Chief, Government Bureau Turner Smith* Deputy Chief, Energy and Environment Bureau Anna Lumelsky* Deputy State Solicitor 1 Ashburton Pl. Boston, MA 02108 (617.963.2277) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
MATTHEW J. PLATKIN Attorney General for the State of New Jersey By: /s/ Angela Cai Angela Cai* Executive Assistant Attorney General Jeremy M. Feigenbaum* Solicitor General Shankar Duraiswamy* Deputy Solicitor General 25 Market St. Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 376-3377 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
KRISTEN K. MAYES Attorney General for the State of Arizona By: /s/ Joshua D. Bendor Joshua D. Bendor* Solicitor General Nathan Arrowsmith* 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 542-3333 [email protected] [email protected]
WILLIAM TONG Attorney General for the State of Connecticut By: /s/ Michael K. Skold Michael K. Skold* Solicitor General Jill Lacedonia 165 Capitol Ave Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 808 5020 [email protected] [email protected]
PHILIP J. WEISER Attorney General for the State of Colorado By: /s/ Shannon Stevenson Shannon Stevenson* Solicitor General Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 (720) 508-6000 [email protected]
KATHLEEN JENNINGS Attorney General of Delaware By: /s/ Vanessa L. Kassab Vanessa L. Kassab* Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8413 [email protected]
BRIAN L. SCHWALB Attorney General for the District of Columbia By: /s/ Andrew Mendrala Andrew Mendrala* Assistant Attorney General Public Advocacy Division Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia 400 Sixth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-9726 [email protected]
ANNE E. LOPEZ Attorney General for the State of Hawaiʻi By: /s/ Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes David D. Day* Special Assistant to the Attorney General Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes* Solicitor General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 586-1360 [email protected] [email protected]
AARON M. FREY Attorney General for the State of Maine By: /s/ Jason Anton Jason Anton* Assistant Attorney General Maine Office of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 207-626-8800 [email protected]
ANTHONY G. BROWN Attorney General for the State of Maryland By: /s/ Adam D. Kirschner Adam D. Kirschner* Senior Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-576-6424 [email protected]
DANA NESSEL Attorney General of Michigan By: /s/ Linus Banghart-Linn Linus Banghart-Linn* Chief Legal Counsel Neil Giovanatti* Assistant Attorney General Michigan Department of Attorney General 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 281-6677 [email protected] [email protected]
KEITH ELLISON Attorney General for the State of Minnesota By: /s/ Liz Kramer Liz Kramer* Solicitor General 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101 (651) 757-1010 [email protected]
AARON D. FORD Attorney General of Nevada /s/ Heidi Parry Stern Heidi Parry Stern* Solicitor General Office of the Nevada Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 (702) 486-5708 [email protected]
RAÚL TORREZ Attorney General for the State of New Mexico By: /s/ Anjana Samant Anjana Samant* Deputy Counsel NM Department of Justice 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 505-270-4332 [email protected]
JEFF JACKSON Attorney General for the State of North Carolina By: /s/ Daniel P. Mosteller Daniel P. Mosteller* Associate Deputy Attorney General PO Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-716-6026 [email protected]
DAN RAYFIELD Attorney General for the State of Oregon By: /s/ Christina Beatty-Walters Christina Beatty-Walters* Senior Assistant Attorney General 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 [email protected]
CHARITY R. CLARK Attorney General for the State of Vermont By: /s/ Jonathan T. Rose Jonathan T. Rose* Solicitor General 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 (802) 793-1646 [email protected]
NICHOLAS W. BROWN Attorney General for the State of Washington By: /s Andrew Hughes Andrew Hughes* Assistant Attorney General Leah Brown* Assistant Attorney General Office of the Washington State Attorney General 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-7744 [email protected] [email protected]
JOSHUA L. KAUL Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin By: /s Aaron J. Bibb Aaron J. Bibb* Assistant Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 West Main Street Post Office Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 (608) 266-0810 [email protected] *Admitted Pro Hac Vice
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I filed the within via the ECF filing system and that a copy is available for viewing and downloading. I have also caused a copy to be sent via the ECF System to counsel of record on this 7th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Sarah W. Rice
*************************************
Exhibit A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM
DECLARATION OF MAYA BEAL
Declaration of Maya Beal
I, Maya Beal, declare as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18, competent to testify as to the matters herein, and make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am the Director of Finance and Operations for the International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) at the University of Washington. The Director of Finance and Operations provides direction and leadership for I-TECH’s worldwide financial reporting and accountability, operations and award management. This position ensures all I-TECH systems follow standards established by the State Office of Financial Management, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Office of Management and Budget, and various funding sources (federal and private).
3. I-TECH is a center in the University of Washington’s Department of Global Health within the School of Public Health and School of Medicine. I-TECH has activities in more than 25 countries and is committed to building long-term capacity through health systems strengthening; human resources for health; and targeted, data-driven interventions and research that are responsive to local needs. Our unique approach to sustainability and capacity building, through training and technical assistance, creates a strong foundation for contextually appropriate health programs. Our programs effectively tackle emerging health threats and address national health priorities to achieve high quality, compassionate, and equitable health care. I-TECH partners with country governments, universities, non-governmental organizations, civil society partners, and funders to design and implement locally relevant health programs within existing local systems and processes. I-TECH has led or supported programs in more than 30 countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean.
4. Since its founding in 2002, I-TECH’s accomplishments are numerous and vital to the communities it serves. Between 2017 and 2023, I-TECH supported over 1,000 health care facilities and 120 laboratories. During this period, I-TECH supported 250,000 people being initiated on ART, more than 660,000 men circumcised, 5.3 million people tested for HIV, and more than 340,000 women tested for cervical cancer.
5. Moreover, I-TECH has created more than 400 training programs and products that have been adopted by ministries of health in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean Region. I-TECH has trained more than 400,000 health care workers. I-TECH has also led national pre-service curriculum reform in five countries and led faculty development efforts to strengthen delivery of competency-based courses.
6. As a long-time U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) implementing partner, I-TECH has administered projects sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The majority of I-TECH’s grants originate from PEPFAR and are awarded and administered by HRSA and CDC.
7. On September 9, 2024, HRSA awarded I-TECH a grant (FAIN # U9106801) that obligated $8,129,869 for “Capacity Building for Sustainable HIV Services.” The objective of this grant was to “[i]mprove health outcomes for PLHIV along the HIV care continuum by building sustainable health systems, including a global workforce with the right skills, mix and distribution to respond to HIV and other population health priorities.” A true and correct copy of this September 9, 2024, Notice of Award, with a budget period between September 30, 2024, and September 29, 2025, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As of January 22, 2025, UW has spent approximately $2,442,036 of the $8,129,869 obligated under this grant.
8. On September 10, 2024, HRSA awarded I-TECH a grant (FAIN # U1N45176) that obligated $380,862 for “Quality Improvement Solutions for Sustained Epidemic Control Project.” The objective of this grant was to further “[q]uality [i]mprovement for improved HIV services” in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including “[d]elivery of training and mentoring services by quality improvement coaches” and “[n]ational level support to DRC Ministry of Health for an improved HIV services framework.” A true and correct copy of this September 10, 2024, Notice of Award, with a budget period between September 30, 2024, and September 29, 2025, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As of January 22, 2025, UW has spent approximately $200,207 of the $380,862 obligated under this grant.
9. I-TECH also has received a significant number of grants from the CDC. The CDC has already awarded fourteen (14) PEPFAR grants to I-TECH as a prime recipient and subrecipient, running to 2026-2028, obligating approximately $12,733,706 in federal funds for various projects, including strengthening health services in clinics and other critical public health infrastructure in Namibia, Malawi, and Mozambique. As of January 22, 2025, I-TECH has spent at least $3,942,071 pursuant to these CDC grants.
10. On January 27, 2025, I-TECH received from HRSA two stop-work orders for both its “Capacity Building” and “Quality Improvement” grants. These stop-work orders, which both took the form of subsequent “Notice[s] of Award,” contained identical boilerplate language, stating that because of the “President’s Executive Order on Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” UW and I-TECH must “immediately cease all activities on this award, which includes activities conducted under subawards and contracts.” They directed that “[a]ctivities are suspended until further notice” and “further activities” would be subject to “additional guidance and the future availability of funds.” Additionally, they directed that “[n]o additional costs may be incurred, however any costs incurred prior to January 24, 2025, may be allowable for payment.” Finally, the stop-work orders did not give any additional reason for their cessation of payment obligations, but did make clear that “[t]his action is not subject to appeal.” True and correct copies of these January 27, 2025, stop-work orders are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
11. On January 29, 2025, UW and I-TECH also received additional stop-work orders for its four prime awards funded by CDC grants under PEPFAR: (1) the $965,932 grant for “Advancing Sustainable Implementation of Comprehensive HIV/TB Services for Epidemic Control in the Republic of Mozambique” (FAIN # NU2GGH002374); (2) the $2,250,000 grant for “Human Resources for Health (HRH) to Achieve and Sustain HIV/TB Epidemic Control in Malawi” FAIN # NU2GGH002298); (3) the $2,899,149 grant for “HIV Surveillance for Epidemic Control in Malawi” (FAIN # NU2GGH002423); and (4) the $3,960,457 grant for “Namibia Mechanism for Public Health Assistance, Capacity, and Technical Support” (FAIN # NU2GGH002242). Each stop work order contained the same boilerplate language as the HRSA stop-work orders explaining that “in accordance with the President’s Executive Order on Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” UW and I-TECH must “immediately cease all activities on this award, which includes activities under subawards and contracts. Activities are suspended until further notice. Further activities will be subject to additional guidance and the future availability of funds.” The CDC stop-work orders further repeated the same directive from the HRSA stop-work orders that “[t]he grant funds on this award are restricted until further notice. No additional costs may be incurred. Any costs incurred prior to January 24, 2025, may be allowable for payment.” True and correct copies of these four January 29, 2025, CDC stop-work orders are attached hereto as Exhibits E, F, G, and H.
12. On January 31, 2025, the Rhode Island District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the federal financial assistance freeze against federal agencies, including CDC and HRSA.
13. On February 1, 2025, the CDC loaded a Notice of Court Order to our grant files in GrantSolutions. A true and correct copy of this Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit I. This Notice promised “federal agencies could not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” Based on this Notice, I-TECH resumed its award activities.
14. On February 5, 2025, all I-TECH CDC PEPFAR prime grantees received Notices of Award, continuing to partially implement the President’s Executive Order, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid. A true and correct copy of this notice is attached hereto as Exhibit J. It provided a “Limited Waiver to the Pause of U.S. Foreign Assistance for Life-Saving HIV Service Provision.” This limited waiver does not cover “non-life saving assistance” including prevention of HIV transmission, outside of mother-to-child. For activities that fall under the waiver, CDC requires the University of Washington to use the manual payment method. This method adds a burden not contemplated by the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreements entered by I-TECH. This waiver, although facially is meant to cover life-saving services, does not necessarily effectuate its intent. For example, for one CDC program, I-TECH will need to lay off and pay severance for the employees that provide non-covered services. These closeout costs will likely exceed the funds that have been obligated, thus negating I-TECH’s ability to continue to both provide life-saving care that falls under the waiver and adhere with labor regulations and the close out processes required under federal funding regulations.
15. On February 6, 2025, all HRSA I-TECH grantees received an email, continuing to partially implement the President’s Executive Order, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, and notifying grantees of a “Limited Waiver to the Pause of U.S. Foreign Assistance for Life-Saving HIV Service Provision.” A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit K. This limited waiver does not cover “non-life saving assistance” including prevention of HIV transmission, outside of mother-to-child. As a result, I-TECH will need to shut down one HRSA funded program entirely.
16. I-TECH staff and faculty were shocked and surprised to receive these stop-work orders, which appeared to conflict with the TRO.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 7th day of February 2025, at Seattle, Washington.
MAYA BEAL Director of Finance and Operations I-TECH
