Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has joined forces with a cadre of 21 attorneys general in a legal challenge against the Trump Administration. At the core of the dispute are allegations that Trump's team unlawfully halted billions in essential federal funding for states by maneuvering a regulatory workaround. Details of this lawsuit were made public in a recent press release from the Massachusetts Attorney General's office.
Under the microscope is the so-called "agency priorities clause," a seemingly obscure slice of legalese the Trump Administration has employed to cut off funds in diverse areas encompassing public safety, education, and even public health. Just in Massachusetts, such actions have already severed a lifeline of funding for projects aimed at aiding vulnerable communities, including a $11 million cooperative agreement benefiting local farmers and a $1 million grant designed to mitigate asthma in economically challenged neighborhoods.
The crux of the lawsuit, as Campbell argues, is that the Trump directive is a gross distortion of agency power, a deviation from the norm of how these regulations were traditionally used. Before Trump, agencies wouldn't nip a grant in the bud simply because the winds of their preferences changed. This practice represents a departure, a deviation wrapped in legalese but at odds with longstanding procedure. Campbell's statement makes it clear: "Congress controls the power of the purse." She posits that the administration's whims should not dictate the flow of funds earmarked by legislators for state use.
February saw an escalation when President Trump issued an executive order, instructing federal agencies to terminate grants wholesale. The agencies followed suit, as they were told, using the "agency priorities clause" as their rationale, leading to the mass terminations of grants without prior notice to states and in direct conflict with federal statutes designating funds for the programs in question.
The lawsuit, filed in the District of Massachusetts, aims to strike a legal blow against this practice, seeking a declaratory judgment that this OMB regulation doesn't grant the Trump Administration carte blanche to cut off funding based on shifting preferences after a grant's award. The intended outcome is to vacate the administration’s sweeping terminations, which were justified by alleged changes in agency priorities. The supporting coalition includes attorneys general from a broad spectrum of states, stretching from Arizona to Wisconsin, all united in the cause of clarity and the continuity of funding that so many rely on.
.jpg){kind=link}