Boston – a general lawyer from over 20 states and Washington, DC filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday, questioning billions of dollars in financing cuts made by the Trump administration, which would finance everything from preventing crime to crime to food safety to food safety Scientific research.
A lawsuit submitted to Boston asks the judge to limit Trump’s administration from relying on an unclear clause in a federal regulation to limit subsidies that are not consistent with his priorities. From January, the claim claims that the administration has used this clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of subsidies that were previously granted to countries and scholarship holders.
“The defendants’ decision to refer to the clause to dissolve the subsidy based on the changed priorities of the agency is unlawful,” the plaintiff argued. “The history of covering the provisions of the clause clearly explains that the Office of Management and Budget has been allocated to the notice clause only in limited circumstances and does not provide a wide entitlement to solve the subsidy under the influence of whim based on the newly identified priorities of the agency.”
The lawsuit claims that the Trump administration used the clause for the basics of “campaign for picking and sunbathing” to limit federal subsidies.
“The accused solved thousands of grant awards granted to the reasons, pulling out the carpet from the state and taking critical federal funds, on which countries and their inhabitants rely on basic programs,” added a lawsuit.
“Pennsylvania pay their taxes to the federal government – and deserve goods and services that were promised to them in return,” said Governor Josh Shapiro in a statement published on social media. Shapiro, a democrat, conducted several lawsuits against Trump’s administration, while the Republican Prosecutor General, Dave Sunday, remained away from the fight.
Prosecutor General Rhode Island Neronha said that this process was just one of the Several coalitions mainly of democratic countries They submitted applications for financing. For the most part, they largely managed to win the cuts in a number of legal wins.
This may, however, be the widest challenge for these financing cuts.
“It’s no secret that this president has ended a lot to capture federal funds for the States, but it is less known how Trump’s administration tries to justify his unlawful action,” Neronha said in a statement. “Almost every lawsuit has filed this coalition of democratic prosecutors against administration, is associated with its unlawful and glaring attempts to work out Americans from basic programs and services they rely on. Most often it has the form of illegal federal financing cuts, which the administration tries to justify using the so -called” priorities of the agency “.
Prosecutor General Connecticut William Tong said that the claim was aimed at stopping the financing cuts, which he described as non -discrimination and illegal.
“There is no” because I don’t like you “or” because I don’t like it anymore “, which in federal law allows the president to bypass the congress under the influence of whim,” Tong said in a statement. “From the first minutes of office, Trump unilately rejected our police, our schools, our health care and many more. He can’t do it, and that’s why we’ve been in a circle in the court and we’ve been recovering in the court.”
The claim claims that OMB has announced the use of a given clause to justify cuts. According to the claim, the clause in question refers to five words that say that federal agents can solve subsidies if the prize “no longer affects the program or agency’s priorities”.
“Trump’s administration claimed that five words in this clause -” The agency’s priorities have no longer actions. “
