A coalition of attorneys general from more than 20 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., filed a sweeping federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging what they describe as arbitrary and politically motivated funding cuts by the Trump administration, cuts that have impacted programs from law enforcement and health care to agriculture and scientific research.
The complaint, filed in a federal court in Boston, takes aim at the administration’s reliance on a little-known provision in federal regulations, commonly referred to as the “agency priorities clause”—to cancel thousands of previously approved grants. The plaintiffs argue the administration has exploited this clause to abruptly defund critical initiatives that don’t align with shifting executive priorities.
“Defendants’ decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,” the lawsuit contends. “The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.”
RELATED STORIES
The attorneys general describe the clause’s application as the legal cover for a widespread campaign to gut essential public programs, what they call a “slash-and-burn campaign” targeting federal funding at the state level.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
“Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,” the suit alleges.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the federal agency at the center of the legal dispute, had not responded to requests for comment as of Tuesday afternoon, according to AP’s report.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, speaking on behalf of the coalition, said the legal action is part of a broader effort to curb what he described as the Trump administration’s repeated overreach in cutting congressionally appropriated funding.
“It’s no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,” Neronha said. “Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely.”
“Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called ‘agency priorities clause,’” he added.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong echoed that sentiment, blasting the rationale as legally baseless and politically driven.
“There is no ‘because I don’t like you’ or ‘because I don’t feel like it anymore’ defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,” Tong stated. “Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can’t do that, and that’s why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell cited direct examples of the fallout from the administration’s actions, including the termination of an $11 million U.S. Department of Agriculture agreement that linked state farmers to food distribution sites, and the cancellation of a $1 million EPA grant meant to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities.
“We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts’ residents, institutions, and economy,” Campbell said.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a five-word phrase buried in federal grant guidelines: “no longer effectuates … agency priorities.” According to the plaintiffs, the administration has interpreted that phrase as a green light to kill entire programs at will, even those funded and approved by Congress.
“The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—’no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities’—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,” the suit argues.
