In a bold move, legal representatives from over 20 states and Washington, D. C. , have taken the Trump administration to court. Their target? Billions of dollars in funding cuts that hit everything from crime prevention to food security and scientific research.

The lawsuit, filed in Boston, is a direct challenge to the administration's use of a little-known rule to cancel grants that don't fit its current priorities. Since January, the administration has used this rule to scrap entire programs and thousands of grants already awarded to states and recipients.

The plaintiffs argue that the administration is misusing this rule. They claim it was only meant for limited circumstances, not for cutting grants on a whim just because priorities have changed.

The lawsuit paints a picture of a "slash-and-burn campaign" by the Trump administration. It accuses the administration of pulling the rug out from under states, taking away critical federal funding that people rely on for essential programs.

The White House's Office of Management and Budget has not yet responded to requests for comment.

This lawsuit is just one of many filed by a coalition of mostly Democratic states against funding cuts. They've had some success in court, temporarily halting some cuts. But this one might be the broadest challenge yet.

Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha pointed out that the Trump administration is trying to justify its actions using a so-called "agency priorities clause. " He argues that the administration is unlawfully trying to rob Americans of basic programs and services.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong described the funding cuts as indiscriminate and illegal. He emphasized that the President cannot bypass Congress to defund important services like police, schools, and healthcare.

In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell highlighted specific cuts, like a $11 million agreement with farmers and a $1 million grant to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. She vowed not to stand by while the President attacks the state's residents, institutions, and economy.

The lawsuit argues that the Office of Management and Budget has misused a clause that allows federal agents to terminate grants if they no longer fit program goals or agency priorities. The plaintiffs claim the administration is using this clause to withhold funding whenever it pleases.

States Fight Back: The Battle Over Federal Funding Cuts

Actions