update - Trump cuts $37.5M in grants when Atlanta airport refuses to discontinue DEI policies
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Its the next step after trump got MAGA to believe that the dems were weaponizing the judicial system. Now its weaponize they think they should use it too.
A group of prosecutors from the U.S. Attorneys office presented a memo to head of the U.S. Attorney General that these cases do not meet the minimum level of evidence to prosecute. Trump had to appoint a mindless flunky to this position in order to have these charges proceed. How much money is Trump wasting on the futility of firing political opponents and hiring of incompetent to do his thuggery? As well as the cost to the government to later defend against malicious prosecutions. There is a self appointed tyrant king in the office of the president.
Last edited:
President Donald Trump’s administration tried to block undocumented children from accessing Head Start, a federally funded preschool. However, a court order has put that effort on hold — for now. After a federal judge paused the policy changes, advocates warned the rules could have removed more than 100,000 children from education programs.
The lawsuit
A federal judge issued the preliminary injunction. (Wesley Tingey/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from multiple states, challenging a policy change from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A federal judge in Washington state issued the preliminary injunction, expanding an earlier pause won by 21 Democratic attorneys general within their states. Meanwhile, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency disagrees with the decision and is reviewing its legal options.
Background on the policy
The policy aimed to exclude undocumented immigrants from certain programs. (Artem Kniaz/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
Earlier this year, HHS introduced a proposal to reinterpret eligibility rules, aiming to exclude undocumented immigrants from accessing programs like Head Start. These programs had previously been made available under a federal law signed during the Bill Clinton administration.
Targeting immigrants
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was to discourage illegal immigration. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Under the proposed change, undocumented immigrants would no longer qualify for social programs by reclassifying them as recipients of federal public benefits. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was intended to deter illegal immigration. However, advocates argued the policy would harm children and families who depend on services like Head Start.
Judge’s response
The judge ruled the change would cause harm to families. (Mike Scheid/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In blocking the rule, Judge Ricardo Martinez wrote that the change would cause real harm to families. “It also results in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced dropouts and inability to pay life expenses and support families,” he said. Previously, Head Start providers were not required to check immigration status, and the new policy would have changed that. Plaintiffs argued this could discourage families from applying due to fear and confusion.
Judge blocks Trump admin's preschool ban for immigrant children
The lawsuit
A federal judge issued the preliminary injunction. (Wesley Tingey/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from multiple states, challenging a policy change from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A federal judge in Washington state issued the preliminary injunction, expanding an earlier pause won by 21 Democratic attorneys general within their states. Meanwhile, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency disagrees with the decision and is reviewing its legal options.
Background on the policy
The policy aimed to exclude undocumented immigrants from certain programs. (Artem Kniaz/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
Earlier this year, HHS introduced a proposal to reinterpret eligibility rules, aiming to exclude undocumented immigrants from accessing programs like Head Start. These programs had previously been made available under a federal law signed during the Bill Clinton administration.
Targeting immigrants
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was to discourage illegal immigration. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Under the proposed change, undocumented immigrants would no longer qualify for social programs by reclassifying them as recipients of federal public benefits. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was intended to deter illegal immigration. However, advocates argued the policy would harm children and families who depend on services like Head Start.
Judge’s response
The judge ruled the change would cause harm to families. (Mike Scheid/Unsplash)© Knewz (CA)
In blocking the rule, Judge Ricardo Martinez wrote that the change would cause real harm to families. “It also results in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced dropouts and inability to pay life expenses and support families,” he said. Previously, Head Start providers were not required to check immigration status, and the new policy would have changed that. Plaintiffs argued this could discourage families from applying due to fear and confusion.
Judge blocks Trump admin's preschool ban for immigrant children
A federal judge in Arizona on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from immediately deporting dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children who came to the U.S. alone.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson granted a preliminary injunction, citing concerns about the steps the government had taken to prepare to deport the children.
“The foundation of Defendants’ argument for their authority to transport Plaintiffs out of the United States is that Defendants are reuniting Plaintiff Children with parents abroad, but counsel could not identify a single instance of coordination between a parent and any government—American or Guatemalan,” she wrote.
The ruling extends the protection for the children living in shelters or foster care after Márquez issued a temporary restraining order over Labor Day weekend. The order was meant to keep the children from being removed until at least Sept. 26.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17.
The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.
This lawsuit and a related one in Washington were filed in response to the Trump administration's work to quickly deport Guatemalan migrant children.
Last month, the administration notified shelters — where migrant children traveling alone initially live after they cross the U.S.-Mexico border — that they were going to take them back to Guatemala and that they must be ready in a matter of hours. Many children got as far as boarding planes in Texas on the morning of Aug. 31 and were set to depart to Guatemala.
The Arizona lawsuit is asking for the government to give the children the chance to present their cases and have access to legal counsel. It also wants the children placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pushed back, saying it is trying to reunite the children with their families, which is in the kids' best interest and at the behest of the Guatemalan government.
Arizona judge blocks Trump administration from deporting migrant Guatemalan and Honduran children
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson granted a preliminary injunction, citing concerns about the steps the government had taken to prepare to deport the children.
“The foundation of Defendants’ argument for their authority to transport Plaintiffs out of the United States is that Defendants are reuniting Plaintiff Children with parents abroad, but counsel could not identify a single instance of coordination between a parent and any government—American or Guatemalan,” she wrote.
The ruling extends the protection for the children living in shelters or foster care after Márquez issued a temporary restraining order over Labor Day weekend. The order was meant to keep the children from being removed until at least Sept. 26.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17.
The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.
This lawsuit and a related one in Washington were filed in response to the Trump administration's work to quickly deport Guatemalan migrant children.
Last month, the administration notified shelters — where migrant children traveling alone initially live after they cross the U.S.-Mexico border — that they were going to take them back to Guatemala and that they must be ready in a matter of hours. Many children got as far as boarding planes in Texas on the morning of Aug. 31 and were set to depart to Guatemala.
The Arizona lawsuit is asking for the government to give the children the chance to present their cases and have access to legal counsel. It also wants the children placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pushed back, saying it is trying to reunite the children with their families, which is in the kids' best interest and at the behest of the Guatemalan government.
Arizona judge blocks Trump administration from deporting migrant Guatemalan and Honduran children
Fox News' Howard Kurtz stopped for a moment on Thursday evening to acknowledge the hard reality for the generally Donald Trump-supportive network: the president's personally-influenced Justice Department indictment of former FBI Director James Comey flies in the face of all standards of how federal prosecutors are supposed to operate, or in fact would have been tolerated in any prior administration.
Comey, who was initially fired near the beginning of Trump's first term in office for refusing to intervene to shut down the Russia investigation, was indicted earlier in the day in Virginia, following Trump's demands for it to happen. The charges, of false statements and obstruction, appear to be based on a discrepancy between his and his deputy's accounts in Senate questioning several years ago, which was already investigated by the inspector general and determined likely not to have been a lie.
But Trump insisted on the prosecution anyway, and took a victory lap on his Truth Social platform after it was filed, writing, "JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI."
None of this is normal, Kurtz pointed out to his fellows on Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier."
"Let's not mince words here — I say this as a former Justice Department reporter," said Kurtz. "This was completely and totally orchestrated by President Trump. He says he's leaving it to Justice, but he very much out in the open — remember, he fired his own appointee as U.S. attorney in that part of Virginia, because he didn't think there was enough evidence to bring this case. Brought in a White House aide, his former defense lawyer, whose job was to get this done, and apparently that has worked."
"I think we've become inured to this, but in previous administrations, any hint of contact with a criminal case would be a scandal on its own," he added. "And so President Trump, by the way he pulled the strings, has gotten his way with this initial indictment."
'Let's not mince words': Fox analyst admits Trump 'completely orchestrated' Comey charges
Comey, who was initially fired near the beginning of Trump's first term in office for refusing to intervene to shut down the Russia investigation, was indicted earlier in the day in Virginia, following Trump's demands for it to happen. The charges, of false statements and obstruction, appear to be based on a discrepancy between his and his deputy's accounts in Senate questioning several years ago, which was already investigated by the inspector general and determined likely not to have been a lie.
But Trump insisted on the prosecution anyway, and took a victory lap on his Truth Social platform after it was filed, writing, "JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI."
None of this is normal, Kurtz pointed out to his fellows on Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier."
"Let's not mince words here — I say this as a former Justice Department reporter," said Kurtz. "This was completely and totally orchestrated by President Trump. He says he's leaving it to Justice, but he very much out in the open — remember, he fired his own appointee as U.S. attorney in that part of Virginia, because he didn't think there was enough evidence to bring this case. Brought in a White House aide, his former defense lawyer, whose job was to get this done, and apparently that has worked."
"I think we've become inured to this, but in previous administrations, any hint of contact with a criminal case would be a scandal on its own," he added. "And so President Trump, by the way he pulled the strings, has gotten his way with this initial indictment."
'Let's not mince words': Fox analyst admits Trump 'completely orchestrated' Comey charges
Cruelty and dehumanization of people is central to MAGA.
They are just Nazis.
They are just Nazis.
Atlanta’s airport has forfeited at least $37.5 million because city leaders have refused to disavow diversity, equity and inclusion programs as mandated by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the world’s busiest airport by passenger traffic, declined on July 29 to agree to terms set out by the Federal Aviation Administration. Those terms certify that the airport doesn’t “operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
That language mirrors a January executive order signed by Trump banning DEI programs operated by anyone doing business with or receiving money from the federal government.
The FAA told the Atlanta airport, owned and controlled by the city government, that it was holding back $57 million, The Journal-Constitution reports. But federal authorities said $19 million of that money would be available to Atlanta in the next federal budget year if it agrees to the language then.
The money would have gone to repave taxiways and renovate public restrooms, among other projects.
The language could force the city to give up on a longstanding program that targets 25% of airport business for minority-owned firms and 10% for women-owned firms. Atlanta’s first Black mayor, Maynard Jackson, held up a $400 million airport expansion by insisting that a portion of the spending go to minorities and women. That project put Atlanta on the path to having the world's busiest airport, and the complex is now partially named for Jackson, along with former Mayor William Hartsfield. The city’s minority business programs are credited with helping to bolster Black-owned businesses in Atlanta, burnishing the city’s reputation as a place where Black people could advance materially.
The newspaper found that Atlanta officials unsuccessfully tried to persuade the FAA to alter the language.
A number of other local governments, including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Minneapolis, sued in May to stop Trump’s DEI ban. They argue in a lawsuit filed in Seattle that Trump is usurping powers reserved to Congress by trying to impose funding conditions on congressionally approved grants. A judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from altering the grant conditions for the local governments that are suing, but not for any other governments.
Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who is seeking reelection this year, has said he’s considering changes to the program so the city could keep receiving federal money for a wide range of functions including the airport. Atlanta’s officials are elected on a nonpartisan basis, but Dickens, who is Black, says he’s Democrat.
“The city is currently evaluating all options to ensure alignment with our long-held values, local policy, and federal law and we are confident that the airport will be well positioned to receive federal funds in the future,” said Michael Smith, a spokesperson for Dickens.
In the meantime, the airport plans to “pursue alternative funding to advance these projects without impacting customers or airport service providers,” although Smith didn’t say where that money would come from. The city’s policy has been to finance airport improvements solely with airport-generated income.
In the year ended June 2024, the airport had $989 million in revenue and $845 million in expenses, according to a city financial report. At the time, the airport had almost $1 billion in ongoing construction. Smith said federal funding is “important” but represents less than 10% of the airport’s planned construction program over the next six years.
Atlanta forfeits $37.5M in airport funds after refusing to agree to Trump's DEI ban
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the world’s busiest airport by passenger traffic, declined on July 29 to agree to terms set out by the Federal Aviation Administration. Those terms certify that the airport doesn’t “operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
That language mirrors a January executive order signed by Trump banning DEI programs operated by anyone doing business with or receiving money from the federal government.
The FAA told the Atlanta airport, owned and controlled by the city government, that it was holding back $57 million, The Journal-Constitution reports. But federal authorities said $19 million of that money would be available to Atlanta in the next federal budget year if it agrees to the language then.
The money would have gone to repave taxiways and renovate public restrooms, among other projects.
The language could force the city to give up on a longstanding program that targets 25% of airport business for minority-owned firms and 10% for women-owned firms. Atlanta’s first Black mayor, Maynard Jackson, held up a $400 million airport expansion by insisting that a portion of the spending go to minorities and women. That project put Atlanta on the path to having the world's busiest airport, and the complex is now partially named for Jackson, along with former Mayor William Hartsfield. The city’s minority business programs are credited with helping to bolster Black-owned businesses in Atlanta, burnishing the city’s reputation as a place where Black people could advance materially.
The newspaper found that Atlanta officials unsuccessfully tried to persuade the FAA to alter the language.
A number of other local governments, including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Minneapolis, sued in May to stop Trump’s DEI ban. They argue in a lawsuit filed in Seattle that Trump is usurping powers reserved to Congress by trying to impose funding conditions on congressionally approved grants. A judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from altering the grant conditions for the local governments that are suing, but not for any other governments.
Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who is seeking reelection this year, has said he’s considering changes to the program so the city could keep receiving federal money for a wide range of functions including the airport. Atlanta’s officials are elected on a nonpartisan basis, but Dickens, who is Black, says he’s Democrat.
“The city is currently evaluating all options to ensure alignment with our long-held values, local policy, and federal law and we are confident that the airport will be well positioned to receive federal funds in the future,” said Michael Smith, a spokesperson for Dickens.
In the meantime, the airport plans to “pursue alternative funding to advance these projects without impacting customers or airport service providers,” although Smith didn’t say where that money would come from. The city’s policy has been to finance airport improvements solely with airport-generated income.
In the year ended June 2024, the airport had $989 million in revenue and $845 million in expenses, according to a city financial report. At the time, the airport had almost $1 billion in ongoing construction. Smith said federal funding is “important” but represents less than 10% of the airport’s planned construction program over the next six years.
Atlanta forfeits $37.5M in airport funds after refusing to agree to Trump's DEI ban
On Friday morning, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents nabbed Des Moines Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Ian Roberts, and now it appears he's been lost in custody.
The school is at a loss as to why ICE arrested Roberts, whose parents came to the U.S. from Guyana, The Associated Press reported.
“We have no confirmed information as to why Dr. Roberts is being detained or the next potential steps,” the school said in a statement.
Now it appears no one knows where he is in the "system."
ICE records show Roberts in custody "at a county jail in western Iowa." However, "a Pottawattamie County jail employee said he is not currently at their jail."
There is another county jail in Council Bluffs, Iowa, but it is approximately 130 miles west of Des Moines.
"An employee at the ICE office in St. Paul, Minnesota, which oversees operations in Iowa, said he had no information on Roberts’ arrest," the AP said.
The report also noted that calls went out to ICE "regional offices in Omaha, Nebraska, and Kansas City, Missouri," but that all of those calls "went unanswered."
Local reports noted Roberts was in the 2000 Olympics, "received a bachelor's degree from Coppin State University, and received his master's degree in education and an Ed.D. in Urban Educational Leadership at St. John's University."
Locals are calling on citizens to come to the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines at 4 p.m. to protest on Roberts' behalf.
In a concurring opinion authored byU.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the judge wrote, "If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate the process for removal."
That has proven not to be the case in several instances so far.
School superintendent nabbed by ICE appears lost in the system
The school is at a loss as to why ICE arrested Roberts, whose parents came to the U.S. from Guyana, The Associated Press reported.
“We have no confirmed information as to why Dr. Roberts is being detained or the next potential steps,” the school said in a statement.
Now it appears no one knows where he is in the "system."
ICE records show Roberts in custody "at a county jail in western Iowa." However, "a Pottawattamie County jail employee said he is not currently at their jail."
There is another county jail in Council Bluffs, Iowa, but it is approximately 130 miles west of Des Moines.
"An employee at the ICE office in St. Paul, Minnesota, which oversees operations in Iowa, said he had no information on Roberts’ arrest," the AP said.
The report also noted that calls went out to ICE "regional offices in Omaha, Nebraska, and Kansas City, Missouri," but that all of those calls "went unanswered."
Local reports noted Roberts was in the 2000 Olympics, "received a bachelor's degree from Coppin State University, and received his master's degree in education and an Ed.D. in Urban Educational Leadership at St. John's University."
Locals are calling on citizens to come to the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines at 4 p.m. to protest on Roberts' behalf.
In a concurring opinion authored byU.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the judge wrote, "If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate the process for removal."
That has proven not to be the case in several instances so far.
School superintendent nabbed by ICE appears lost in the system
Iowa school superintendent arrested by ICE, facing prior weapons charges, allegedly found with loaded handgun
Des Moines Public Schools superintendent Dr. Ian Roberts faces weapons charges and deportation after living illegally in the U.S. since his visa expired.
www.foxnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday extended an order that allows President Donald Trump's administration to keep frozen nearly $5 billion in foreign aid, handing him another victory in a dispute over presidential power.
With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court's conservative majority granted the Republican administration’s emergency appeal in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.
The Justice Department sought the high court's intervention after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that Trump's action was likely illegal and that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.
The federal appeals court in Washington declined to put Ali's ruling on hold, but Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked it on Sept. 9. The full court indefinitely extended Roberts' order.
The court has previously cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip legal protections from hundreds of thousands of migrants, fire thousands of federal employees, oust transgender members of the military and remove the heads of independent government agencies.
The legal victories, while not final rulings, all have come through emergency appeals, used sparingly under previous presidencies, to fast-track cases to the Supreme Court, where decisions are often handed down with no explanation.
Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in a letter Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.
He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That’s a rarely used maneuver when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice essentially flips the script. Under federal law, Congress has to approve the rescission within 45 days or the money must be spent. But the budget year will end before the 45-day window closes, and in this situation the White House is asserting that congressional inaction allows it to not spend the money.
The majority wrote in an unsigned order that Trump’s authority over foreign affairs weighed heavily in its decision, while cautioning that it was not making a final ruling in the case.
But that was cold comfort to the dissenters. “The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients — not just now but (because of their impending expiration) for all time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as people lose access to food supplies and development programs.
The high court's decision “further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order," said Nick Sansone, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group who represented the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition in the case. “It will also have a grave humanitarian impact on vulnerable communities throughout the world.”
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before departing the White House, Friday, Sept. 26, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)© The Associated Press
Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that another $6.5 billion in aid that had been subject to the freeze would be spent before the end of the fiscal year next Tuesday.
The case has been winding its way through the courts for months, and Ali said he understood that his ruling would not be the last word on the matter.
“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.
In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an earlier injunction Ali had issued to require that the money be spent. But the three-judge panel did not shut down the lawsuit.
After Trump issued his rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s court and the judge issued the order that’s now being challenged.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Supreme Court keeps in place Trump funding freeze that threatens billions of dollars in foreign aid
With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court's conservative majority granted the Republican administration’s emergency appeal in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.
The Justice Department sought the high court's intervention after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that Trump's action was likely illegal and that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.
The federal appeals court in Washington declined to put Ali's ruling on hold, but Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked it on Sept. 9. The full court indefinitely extended Roberts' order.
The court has previously cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip legal protections from hundreds of thousands of migrants, fire thousands of federal employees, oust transgender members of the military and remove the heads of independent government agencies.
The legal victories, while not final rulings, all have come through emergency appeals, used sparingly under previous presidencies, to fast-track cases to the Supreme Court, where decisions are often handed down with no explanation.
Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in a letter Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.
He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That’s a rarely used maneuver when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice essentially flips the script. Under federal law, Congress has to approve the rescission within 45 days or the money must be spent. But the budget year will end before the 45-day window closes, and in this situation the White House is asserting that congressional inaction allows it to not spend the money.
The majority wrote in an unsigned order that Trump’s authority over foreign affairs weighed heavily in its decision, while cautioning that it was not making a final ruling in the case.
But that was cold comfort to the dissenters. “The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients — not just now but (because of their impending expiration) for all time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as people lose access to food supplies and development programs.
The high court's decision “further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order," said Nick Sansone, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group who represented the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition in the case. “It will also have a grave humanitarian impact on vulnerable communities throughout the world.”
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before departing the White House, Friday, Sept. 26, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)© The Associated Press
Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that another $6.5 billion in aid that had been subject to the freeze would be spent before the end of the fiscal year next Tuesday.
The case has been winding its way through the courts for months, and Ali said he understood that his ruling would not be the last word on the matter.
“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.
In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an earlier injunction Ali had issued to require that the money be spent. But the three-judge panel did not shut down the lawsuit.
After Trump issued his rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s court and the judge issued the order that’s now being challenged.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Supreme Court keeps in place Trump funding freeze that threatens billions of dollars in foreign aid
President Donald Trump's transportation department has been pulling back grants already announced for recreational trails and bicycle lanes, telling local officials their projects fail to promote road capacity or are “hostile to motor vehicles.”
The department recently sent letters to local governments in at least six states — Alabama, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Mexico — informing them it was withdrawing money awarded under the $1.1 trillion infrastructure law former President Joe Biden signed in 2021.
The reversals are among the clearest signals yet of the drastic shift from the Biden administration's emphasis on alternative transportation, such as transit and biking, to the Trump administration's focus on preserving and expanding lanes for cars and trucks.
While the new grants Trump's transportation department has announced this year reflect that change, it's practically unprecedented for an administration to claw back grants awarded by a predecessor without a compelling reason, such as potential environmental harms. However, the latest recalled projects didn't have fully funded grant agreements in place, which would have made reversing them far trickier.
The transportation department's press office didn't respond to emails requesting comment.
Prioritizing roads, not trails
Connecticut won a $5.7 million federal grant last summer to help design segments of a 44-mile (71-kilometer) recreational trail connecting several communities along the Naugatuck River.
Rick Dunne, executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, said the grant’s final details were being negotiated when the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a letter this month to inform local officials that the project wouldn't move forward. The agency wants “multimodal grant programs” to focus on “projects that promote vehicular travel,” the letter explained.
“They're defining quality of life for Americans as enhancing automobile operations,” Dunne said.
The same reason was given in a letter sent to Albuquerque, New Mexico, pulling $11.5 million in funding for a leg of a rail trail cutting through the city's core. It was among the first active transportation projects awarded under the infrastructure law, with funding announced in 2022, but it was still going through the approval process.
“We are going to stand up for Albuquerque and prevent the Trump Administration from pulling money from a project the people of Albuquerque want,” Mayor Tim Keller said in a press release. “We will see you in court.”
Kevin Mills, vice president of policy for the Rails to Trails Conservancy, called the cuts “an affront to the priorities set by Congress and Americans’ demands for safer, more convenient walking and biking routes.”
DOT also withdrew a $20 million grant awarded in 2022 to transform three streetscapes in Boston. The reversal was based in part on the project's electric vehicle charging stations, which the administration said contradicted its preference for promoting “traditional forms of energy and natural resources,” the Boston Globe reported.
No project too small to cut
Some of the withdrawn projects were relatively small in dollars and scope but still targeted for reversal due to the department's changing priorities.
One applied to just a single block in San Diego County, California, where the community wanted to test whether it could improve safety without disrupting traffic flow. It sought to employ “creative roadway features” such as roundabouts in place of traffic signals, with plans to expand the approach to other intersections if the model proved successful, said Donna Durckel, spokesperson for the county's Land Use and Environment Group.
But Trump's transportation officials flagged it as “hostile to motor vehicles” in a letter sent Sept. 9 because the project included a so-called road diet that would have reduced the stretch from four lanes to two.
On the same day, McLean County in central Illinois got a similar letter recalling federal funding awarded last year to help design a final 9-mile segment of a bike and pedestrian trail along Route 66. County engineer Jerry Stokes said the project wouldn't affect motor vehicle travel but would promote safety by getting bicyclists and pedestrians off the road.
“We're kind of at a standstill now until new funding sources become available,” he said.
Trump's transportation department pulls trail and bike grants it deems 'hostile' to cars
The department recently sent letters to local governments in at least six states — Alabama, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Mexico — informing them it was withdrawing money awarded under the $1.1 trillion infrastructure law former President Joe Biden signed in 2021.
The reversals are among the clearest signals yet of the drastic shift from the Biden administration's emphasis on alternative transportation, such as transit and biking, to the Trump administration's focus on preserving and expanding lanes for cars and trucks.
While the new grants Trump's transportation department has announced this year reflect that change, it's practically unprecedented for an administration to claw back grants awarded by a predecessor without a compelling reason, such as potential environmental harms. However, the latest recalled projects didn't have fully funded grant agreements in place, which would have made reversing them far trickier.
The transportation department's press office didn't respond to emails requesting comment.
Prioritizing roads, not trails
Connecticut won a $5.7 million federal grant last summer to help design segments of a 44-mile (71-kilometer) recreational trail connecting several communities along the Naugatuck River.
Rick Dunne, executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, said the grant’s final details were being negotiated when the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a letter this month to inform local officials that the project wouldn't move forward. The agency wants “multimodal grant programs” to focus on “projects that promote vehicular travel,” the letter explained.
“They're defining quality of life for Americans as enhancing automobile operations,” Dunne said.
The same reason was given in a letter sent to Albuquerque, New Mexico, pulling $11.5 million in funding for a leg of a rail trail cutting through the city's core. It was among the first active transportation projects awarded under the infrastructure law, with funding announced in 2022, but it was still going through the approval process.
“We are going to stand up for Albuquerque and prevent the Trump Administration from pulling money from a project the people of Albuquerque want,” Mayor Tim Keller said in a press release. “We will see you in court.”
Kevin Mills, vice president of policy for the Rails to Trails Conservancy, called the cuts “an affront to the priorities set by Congress and Americans’ demands for safer, more convenient walking and biking routes.”
DOT also withdrew a $20 million grant awarded in 2022 to transform three streetscapes in Boston. The reversal was based in part on the project's electric vehicle charging stations, which the administration said contradicted its preference for promoting “traditional forms of energy and natural resources,” the Boston Globe reported.
No project too small to cut
Some of the withdrawn projects were relatively small in dollars and scope but still targeted for reversal due to the department's changing priorities.
One applied to just a single block in San Diego County, California, where the community wanted to test whether it could improve safety without disrupting traffic flow. It sought to employ “creative roadway features” such as roundabouts in place of traffic signals, with plans to expand the approach to other intersections if the model proved successful, said Donna Durckel, spokesperson for the county's Land Use and Environment Group.
But Trump's transportation officials flagged it as “hostile to motor vehicles” in a letter sent Sept. 9 because the project included a so-called road diet that would have reduced the stretch from four lanes to two.
On the same day, McLean County in central Illinois got a similar letter recalling federal funding awarded last year to help design a final 9-mile segment of a bike and pedestrian trail along Route 66. County engineer Jerry Stokes said the project wouldn't affect motor vehicle travel but would promote safety by getting bicyclists and pedestrians off the road.
“We're kind of at a standstill now until new funding sources become available,” he said.
Trump's transportation department pulls trail and bike grants it deems 'hostile' to cars
The Orifice is speechless on Trump's blatant lawfare ( a term he falsely used against Biden). Of course Trump is usually guilty of the things he falsely accuses others of ( like stealing elections). The mighty Orifice is now reduced to posting Fox News articles...LOLIowa school superintendent arrested by ICE, facing prior weapons charges, allegedly found with loaded handgun
Des Moines Public Schools superintendent Dr. Ian Roberts faces weapons charges and deportation after living illegally in the U.S. since his visa expired.
Colombia was calling trump the new Hitler, talking about him picking up minorities, putting them in concentration camps, being anti science and backing genocide.Iowa school superintendent arrested by ICE, facing prior weapons charges, allegedly found with loaded handgun
Des Moines Public Schools superintendent Dr. Ian Roberts faces weapons charges and deportation after living illegally in the U.S. since his visa expired.
trump is really winning the world over
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump 's administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.
Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.
The Justice Department's petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.
Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”
U.S. Capitol Police officers with a K9 detector dog, patrols outside of Supreme Court, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)© The Associated Press
Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.
“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.
While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
The administration is appealing two cases.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.
Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mark Sherman And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship
The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.
Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.
The Justice Department's petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.
Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”
U.S. Capitol Police officers with a K9 detector dog, patrols outside of Supreme Court, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)© The Associated Press
Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.
“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.
While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
The administration is appealing two cases.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.
Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mark Sherman And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship
