Judge on Man Deported to Jail In El Salvador as ICE Mistake 'Judge: Bring Him Back!" More!
 |
| A 12th grade Black studies classroom in Harlem.Credit...José A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York Times |
The New York Times
Where Things Stand
Resistance over D.E.I.: The New York State Education Department on Friday issued a defiant response to the Trump administration’s threats to pull federal funding from public schools over certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs, a remarkable departure from the recent conciliatory approach of other institutions. A day earlier, the federal government issued a memo to education officials across the nation, asking them to confirm the elimination of all programs it argues unfairly promote diversity. Read more ›
Deportation ruling: A federal judge told the Trump administration on Friday that it had until Monday night to return a Salvadoran man it had mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador. The Justice Department has admitted it made an “administrative error” last month when it ordered the removal of the migrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, but had said there was little it could do to retrieve him. Read more ›
TikTok reprieve: President Trump announced on Friday that he was again extending the window for TikTok to be separated from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, or face a ban in the United States. The tremendously popular app had faced a Saturday deadline for a deal and now has until mid-June. Read more ›
A judge permanently bars the N.I.H. from limiting medical research funding.
A federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration on Friday from limiting funding from the National Institutes of Health that supports research at universities and academic medical centers, restoring billions of dollars in grant money but setting up an almost certain appeal.
The ruling by Judge Angel Kelley, of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, made an earlier temporary order by her permanent and was one of the first final decisions in the barrage of lawsuits against the Trump administration. But it came about in an unusual way: The government asked the court to enter that very verdict earlier on Friday so it could move ahead with an appeal.
The decision nonetheless was an initial win for a diverse assortment of institutions that conduct medical research. After the Trump administration announced the policy change in February, scores of research hospitals and universities issued dire warnings that the proposal threatened to kneecap American scientific prowess and innovation, estimating that the change could force those institutions to collectively cover a nearly $4 billion shortfall.
Under the Trump administration’s plan, the National Institutes of Health could cap the funding it provides to cover the “indirect costs” of research — for things like maintenance of buildings, utilities and support staff — at 15 percent in the grants it hands out. Historically, when the agency awarded grants, it could allocate close to 50 percent in some cases to cover the indirect costs associated with a given study.
The Trump administration said it had conceived of the policy as a way of freeing up more federal dollars to pay for research directly — covering scientists’ salaries or buying necessary equipment — as opposed to the many tangential costs that hospitals and laboratories incur in maintaining their facilities and other overhead expenses.
But critics described that reasoning as disingenuous, as the changes the administration had proposed would paradoxically force institutions to cover the bill, and most likely shed staff and scale down research projects in the process.
During hearings in February, lawyers described a dizzying array of laboratories under construction and clinical drug trials underway that institutions would be forced to abandon if they had to cover overhead costs on their own, more or less overnight.
Judge Kelley had consistently agreed, ruling repeatedly that the policy appeared unnecessarily reckless and would inflict serious harm on important medical research. After initially barring the Trump administration from implementing the change in February, she extended her order twice while the lawsuit played out.
The government wrote that the case presented “dispositive legal issues” that it would address more fully when the case reached a court of appeals.
The decision also came as the scientific and research community was grappling with even more dire threats to its work from the avalanche of cuts recently to the Department of Health and Human Services. Many of the grant officers at the National Institutes of Health and other divisions appeared to have been swept up in those layoffs.
Earlier on Friday, a coalition of 16 states sued the Trump administration over the withholding of grants that cover the direct costs of medical research, arguing that those, too, had been suspended, leaving research in those states in more explicit jeopardy.
The U.S. awarded large space contracts to companies owned by Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.
The Trump administration said Friday that it had awarded multibillion-dollar space launch contracts to SpaceX, the company owned by Elon Musk, and Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos.
SpaceX’s contract, valued at $5.9 billion, was the largest in a package of three space contracts intended to support launches of sophisticated defense satellites, according to the U.S. Space Force.
Blue Origin won a $2.4 billion contract, and United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, received a $5.4 billion contract, the Pentagon said.
Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk have been locked in a space race in recent years, and Mr. Bezos is working to erode SpaceX’s dominance in the sphere. SpaceX, with its cutting-edge technology, had become one of the largest federal contractors long before Mr. Trump returned to office, receiving billions in government contracts during President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration.
Still, the contract awarded to SpaceX could intensify conflict-of-interest concerns given Mr. Musk’s prominent role in the Trump administration. As Mr. Musk has taken on the federal bureaucracy with a cost-cutting, job-slashing initiative through the Department of Government Efficiency, SpaceX has had several pending requests with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Pentagon to construct new launchpads and expand launch operations.
Federal rules typically block government contracts from going to federal workers. But Mr. Musk has said he is not personally involved in negotiating SpaceX contracts.
On Thursday, President Trump told reporters that Mr. Musk was incurring steep personal costs because of his prominent role in the administration. The president said Mr. Musk would depart the government in a “few months.”
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that tracks federal contracts, said that it would not have been surprising for SpaceX to receive the contract if Mr. Musk were not in the administration. But Ms. Brian said Mr. Musk’s role in the government raised the question, “Is that why he got it?”
She called for disclosures about SpaceX’s bidding. “Because the process doesn’t have transparency, we don’t know whether it’s legitimate or not,” she said.
Steven Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at George Washington University, said in a text message that it was “unsurprising, but nonetheless disappointing, how little the current administration cares” about conflicts of interest. He said the contract would erode trust in the government.
SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday night.
Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, the acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, said in a statement that the contracts would improve America’s ability to launch “critical defense satellites.”
A federal judge issued a permanent injunction definitively barring the National Institutes of Health from slashing the payments it makes to support research costs at universities. The decision came as a major win for groups that had sued to stop the Trump administration from dramatically upending the way scientific and medical research is funded in the United States.
The Navy releases a list of 381 books removed from the Naval Academy’s library.
The Naval Academy campus in Annapolis, Md.Credit...Patrick Semansky/Associated Press
The Navy released the titles of 381 books on Friday evening that were removed from the U.S. Naval
Academy’s Nimitz Library on the Annapolis, Md., campus this week because their subject matter was seen as being related to so-called diversity, equity and inclusion topics.
President Trump issued an executive order in January that banned D.E.I. materials in kindergarten through 12th grade education, but the office of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth informed the Naval Academy on March 28 that he intended the order to apply to the school as well, even though it is a college.
The list also includes books about gender and sexuality, like “Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex” by Elizabeth Reis, and “Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes” by Gerald N. Callahan. President Trump issued a separate executive order in January proclaiming that there are only two sexes.
The academy began pulling books from the shelves at Nimitz Library on Monday evening and largely completed the task before Mr. Hegseth visited midshipmen on campus Tuesday afternoon.
Obama calls for universities to stand up for core values in face of Trump administration threats.
Former President Barack Obama at a forum in Chicago in December.Credit...Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times
Former President Barack Obama, in a campus speech on Thursday, urged universities to resist attacks from the federal government that violate their academic freedom.
He also said schools and students should engage in self-reflection about speech environments on their campuses.
“If you are a university, you may have to figure out, are we in fact doing things right?,” he said during a conversation at Hamilton College in upstate New York. “Have we in fact violated our own values, our own code, violated the law in some fashion?”
“If not, and you’re just being intimidated, well, you should be able to say, that’s why we got this big endowment.”
Mr. Obama’s comments came as the Trump administration has threatened universities with major cuts. It took away $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University in March. It later suspended $175 million to the University of Pennsylvania, and said this week that it was reviewing about $9 billion in arrangements with Harvard and its affiliates.
At Harvard, where the university has made efforts to respond to Republican criticism and concerns from Jewish students and faculty, more than 800 faculty members have signed a letter urging their leadership to more forcefully resist the administration and defend higher education more broadly.
Universities have received critiques from all sides, including those outside of leadership, saying they should do more. But the stakes are high, and large portions of endowments are often earmarked for specific causes that make dipping into them as a rainy-day fund difficult. Johns Hopkins, for example, has a significant endowment, but still laid off 2,000 workers in the wake of federal cuts.
Many universities have seemed to be at a loss about what to do. But some presidents, including those at Brown and Princeton, which have also been told they will have millions in federal grants canceled, have said that they would fight back against the administration, sometimes framing it as a fight for academic freedom.
Princeton’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, called the targeting of Columbia University “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”
Mr. Obama’s advice to lean on the endowment in the face of threats and stand on principle was also endorsed by his former Treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, in a guest essay this week in The Times. “Believe me, a former president of Harvard,” Mr. Summers wrote, “when I say that ways can be found in an emergency to deploy even parts of the endowment that have been earmarked by their donors for other uses.”
To many on the right, and even some on the left, one reason Mr. Trump is attacking higher education is because universities have become politically weakened, partly because they haven’t taken the free-expression concerns of conservatives seriously.
In his remarks on Thursday, Mr. Obama also called on law firms, which have also faced threats from the Trump administration, to stand for their principles, even if they risked losing business.
Mr. Obama told the crowd, which included college students, that everyone should stand up for the rights of others to say wrong and hurtful things.
“The idea of canceling a speaker who comes to your campus, trying to shout them down and not letting them speak,” Mr. Obama said, according to a transcript on his Medium account, “even if I find their ideas obnoxious, well, not only is that not what universities should be about, that’s not what America should be about.”
He added, to applause, “You let them speak, and then you tell them why they’re wrong. That’s how you win the argument.”
A federal judge warned the Trump administration to comply with a previous order that required the government to unfreeze funding for emergency preparedness through FEMA and other federal agencies. The order on Friday accused the government of claiming that a manual review of the FEMA grants was holding up the process, allowing it to continue “covertly” withholding the funding.
The legal fight closely mirrors a previous one over foreign aid payments through U.S.A.I.D. In that case, after a judge ordered the funds unfrozen, the government hurried through its review process and ended up canceling nearly 90 percent of the agency’s programs.
Troy Closson
April 4, 2025, 7:21 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Troy Closson
New York warns Trump it will not comply with public school D.E.I. order.
Image
A student’s face is blurred in the foreground. A poster of famous Black leaders is in the background.
A 12th grade Black studies classroom in Harlem, last month.Credit...José A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York Times
The New York State Education Department on Friday issued a defiant response to the Trump administration’s threats to pull federal funding from public schools over certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs, a remarkable departure from the conciliatory approach of other institutions in recent weeks.
Daniel Morton-Bentley, the deputy commissioner for legal affairs at the state education agency in New York, wrote in a letter to federal education officials that “we understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’”
“But there are no federal or state laws prohibiting the principles of D.E.I.,” Mr. Morton-Bentley wrote, adding that the federal government has not defined what practices it believes violate civil rights protections.
The stern letter was sent one day after the federal government issued a memo to education officials across the nation, asking them to confirm the elimination of all programs it argues unfairly promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Title I funding for schools with high percentages of low-income students was at risk pending compliance, federal officials said.
New York’s stance differed from the muted and often deferential responses across academia and other major institutions to the Trump administration’s threats. Some universities have quietly scrubbed diversity websites and canceled events to comply with executive orders — and to avoid the ire of the White House.
A divide emerged last spring as the presidents of several universities, including Harvard and Columbia, adopted cautious responses when confronted by House Republicans at congressional hearings regarding antisemitism. In contrast, K-12 leaders, including David C. Banks, chancellor of New York City’s public schools at the time, took a combative approach.
The latest wave of pushback is spreading. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, told reporters on Friday that the city would take the Trump administration to court if it snatched away funding, according to The Chicago Tribune.
“We’re not going to be intimidated by these threats,” Mr. Johnson said. “It’s just that simple. So whatever it is that this tyrant is trying to do to this city, we’re going to fight back.”
Unlike universities that rely on federal funding for medical and scientific research, public school districts are more insulated from threats to their bottom line because 90 percent of their funding comes from state and local taxes.
The Trump administration’s memo used a broad interpretation of a Supreme Court decision in 2023 that declared race-based affirmative action programs were unlawful at colleges and universities. That ruling did not address issues involving K-12 schools.
The expansive reasoning did not sit well with New York. The state’s letter argued that the case did “not have the totemic significance that you have assigned it” — and that federal officials were free to make policy pronouncements, but “cannot conflate policy with law.”
Mr. Morton-Bentley also called out what he described as an about-face within the top ranks of the administration.
He pointed out that the education secretary in President Trump’s first term, Betsy DeVos, once told staff that “diversity and inclusion are the cornerstones of high organizational performance.” She also said that “diversity and inclusion are key elements for success” for “building strong teams,” he wrote.
“This is an abrupt shift,” Mr. Morton-Bentley said, adding that the federal government has “provided no explanation for how and why it changed positions.”
The Trump administration’s memo included a certification letter confirming compliance that officials must sign and return to the Education Department within 10 days. New York indicated that it would treat the demand as a request rather than a requirement.
“No further certification will be forthcoming,” the state’s letter said.
Show more
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Tim Balk
April 4, 2025, 7:01 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Tim Balk
Oregon and Washington jointly filed a lawsuit on Friday objecting to a recent executive order by President Trump that aims to require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. The complaint says that the order would disenfranchise voters, and that the U.S. Constitution “gives the president no authority to set rules for how states conduct elections.” The suit, from two Democratic-leaning states, comes after nearly every arm of the Democratic Party on Monday joined a similar suit over the executive order.
Andrew Duehren
April 4, 2025, 7:01 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Andrew DuehrenReporting from Washington
The I.R.S. says it will begin more mass layoffs.
Image
A large stone building with “Internal Revenue Service” engraved on its facade, with a person walking in front.
How deeply the Trump administration wants to cut the Internal Revenue Service staff remains unclear, but people familiar with the matter said the current target appears to be 20 to 25 percent.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
The Internal Revenue Service told employees on Friday that it was beginning another large reduction in staff, according to an email viewed by The New York Times, as the Trump administration moves forward with the next phase of its plans to fire federal workers.
In an email sent to the entire work force after 4 p.m., the agency told employees that the layoffs, called a reduction in force, would proceed in phases and include the possibility of early retirement and buyouts. It also asked employees to submit their résumés so the I.R.S. could assess who should be fired.
The announcement comes as the agency confronts its busiest time of year, with 11 days until the annual tax filing deadline, and as previous cuts are already disrupting its ability to collect taxes.
The I.R.S. had roughly 100,000 employees before President Trump took office, and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has sought to significantly cut the agency’s staffing and funding.
But how deeply the Trump administration wants to ultimately cut has been unclear. The current target appears to be a 20 to 25 percent reduction, said three people familiar with the matter, who cautioned that the total has continuously changed. The administration was at one point last month considering a 50 percent cut to the I.R.S. work force, while at another it had drawn up an initial cut of 18 percent. Republicans are also slashing the agency’s budget, which could force further downsizing.
Uncertainty has plagued I.R.S. employees, some of whom are bracing for the closure of entire divisions. The agency said in its email on Friday that it was eliminating the Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, formerly called the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
Roughly 7,000 I.R.S. employees were laid off earlier this year as part of the probationary firings, but they were later reinstated by a court order and in some cases have been asked to return to work. An additional 5,000 I.R.S. employees took an earlier offer for a buyout.
Many of the probationary employees worked on I.R.S. enforcement and compliance efforts, with those layoffs stalling audits across the country. Over time, the cuts could reduce the revenue the government collects, widening the deficit even as Mr. Musk claims his efforts will narrow it.
Mr. Trump has nominated Billy Long, a former Republican congressman who peddled a fraud-riddled tax credit, to lead the I.R.S., but the Senate has yet to take up his nomination.
Show more
Ben Protess
April 4, 2025, 5:22 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Ben Protess
More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie in its fight with Trump, though not the largest.
Image
Donald B. Verrilli Jr., wearing a dark coat over a white shirt and blue tie.
The brief was drafted by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a solicitor general during President Barack Obama’s administration.Credit...Drew Angerer/Getty Images
More than 500 law firms on Friday threw their support behind some of their embattled peers, declaring that President Trump’s recent crackdown on the law firm industry poses “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”
The firms, 504 in all, signed a so-called friend of the court brief that was filed on behalf of Perkins Coie, the first firm to receive an executive order restricting its business.
Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration, and a judge has temporarily blocked the president’s order, which jeopardized its ability to represent government contractors and limited its access to federal buildings. While the judge weighs whether to permanently block the order, a wide-ranging effort has been underway to collect signatures for the brief.
The New York Times reported this week that none of the nation’s top 10 revenue-generating firms signed the brief before a soft deadline on Tuesday, and that remained the case on Friday. In fact, not a single top 20 firm by revenue, as ranked by American Lawyer, signed, including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins or Gibson Dunn.
Yet in recent days, a few large firms did add their signatures, including Covington & Burling, No. 28 in American Lawyer’s rankings; and Arnold & Porter, No. 47. Two other big firms that received executive orders and are also challenging them in court, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, also signed. All told, nearly 10 firms in the top 100 signed the brief.
Other friend of the court briefs were also filed in support of Perkins Coie, including one signed by both the A.C.L.U. and the Cato Institute, the Washington-based libertarian think tank.
In a statement, Perkins Coie said it was “grateful for the support” in its “challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”
The brief filed by the law firms similarly argued that Mr. Trump’s orders ran afoul of the Constitution, violating the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
“The judiciary should act with resolve — now — to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases,” said the brief, which was drafted by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a solicitor general during President Barack Obama’s administration. “Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create.”
Mr. Verrilli is now a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, a firm that is well-known but not among the nation’s top revenue generators.
Law firm size and ranking were not the only factors in signing. Geography also appeared to play a determining role: Signatures came from top firms in Washington and Chicago, but not New York.
Sullivan & Cromwell did not sign, nor did Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which recently struck a deal with Mr. Trump to avoid an executive order. Paul Weiss, which was the target of an executive order before it reached a deal of its own, did not sign either.
The big New York firms that withheld their signatures were not necessarily opposed, according to people with knowledge of the matter. They quietly support the principle of it, but are concerned that signing the document would draw Mr. Trump’s ire and cost them clients, or that signing would not meaningfully help Perkins Coie.
Some firms that did not sign are nonetheless supporting firms that Mr. Trump targeted. Williams & Connolly is representing Perkins Coie, while Cooley is representing Jenner & Block, another firm that chose to fight Mr. Trump’s order in court. WilmerHale is represented by a prominent conservative litigator, Paul Clement.
In all three cases, judges have temporarily blocked the key elements of the president’s orders.
In each of those cases, firms that received an executive order had ties to the investigation into Russia’s support for Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Perkins Coie was involved in a dossier compiled during the 2016 campaign about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia. WilmerHale once employed Robert Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director who served as the special counsel leading that investigation. And Jenner & Block was home to a top prosecutor who worked with Mr. Mueller.
Other firms chose to cave to Mr. Trump’s demands before being hit with an executive order. Over the last week, Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Milbank both cut deals promising to dedicate $100 million of pro bono work to causes that Mr. Trump supports.
While the firms avoided protracted battles with Mr. Trump, the deals have drawn widespread condemnation in the legal community. And they appeared to embolden Mr. Trump, who has hinted that additional law firms are in his sights.
Mr. Verrilli’s brief, which was co-written by Nathan P. Eimer, a Chicago litigator, warned about the perils of the executive orders and called on judges to intervene.
“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality,” the brief said. “Corporations and individuals alike will risk losing their right to be represented by the law firms of their choice and a profound chill will be cast over the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress.”
Show more
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Adam Liptak
Abbie VanSickle
April 4, 2025, 5:13 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Adam Liptak and Abbie VanSickleReporting from Washington
The Supreme Court lets Trump suspend $65 million in grants to teachers.
Image
The marble frieze at the top of the Supreme Court building, with blue sky above and greenery below.
The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the liberal justices in dissent, amounted to an early victory for the Trump administration before the court.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
The Supreme Court on Friday let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, an early victory for the administration in front of the justices.
The court’s order was unsigned, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The temporary pause will remain in effect while the case is appealed.
The decision was 5 to 4, with five of the court’s conservatives — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — in the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.
The order came in response to one of a series of emergency requests by the Trump administration asking the justices to intervene and overturn lower court rulings that have temporarily blocked parts of President Trump’s agenda.
The grants at issue in the case helped place teachers in poor and rural areas and aimed to recruit a diverse work force reflecting the communities it served.
In February, the Education Department sent grant recipients boilerplate form letters ending the funding, saying the programs “fail to serve the best interests of the United States” by taking account of factors other than “merit, fairness and excellence,” and by allowing waste and fraud.
Eight states, including California and New York, sued to stop the cuts, arguing that they would undermine both urban and rural school districts, requiring them to hire “long-term substitutes, teachers with emergency credentials and unlicensed teachers on waivers.”
Judge Myong J. Joun of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts temporarily ordered the grants to remain available while he considered the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, rejected a request from the Trump administration to undo Judge Joun’s order, saying the government’s arguments were based on “speculation and hyperbole.”
In temporarily blocking the cancellation of the grants, Judge Joun said that he sought to maintain the status quo. He wrote that if he failed to do so, “dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers and faculty rely will be gutted.” On the other hand, he reasoned, if he did pause the Trump administration action, the groups would merely continue to receive funds that had been appropriated by Congress.
In its brief order, the court said that the challengers had “not refuted” the Trump administration’s claim that “it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.” By contrast, the order stated, “the government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm” while the grants are paused. The court said it had relied on statements by the challengers that “they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running.”
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, countered that allowing the grants to be terminated would “inflict significant harm on grantees — a fact that the government barely contests.”
She added: “Worse still, the government does not even deign to defend the lawfulness of its actions.”
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the teacher training efforts would be harmed by the court’s action.
“States have consistently represented that the loss of these grants will force them — indeed, has already forced them — to curtail teacher training programs,” she wrote.
When the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, wrote in an emergency application that Judge Joun’s order was one of many lower-court rulings thwarting government initiatives.
“The aim is clear: to stop the executive branch in its tracks and prevent the administration from changing direction on hundreds of billions of dollars of government largesse that the executive branch considers contrary to the United States’ interests and fiscal health,” she wrote.
She added: “Only this court can right the ship — and the time to do so is now.”
In response, the states said that the justices should decide one dispute at a time.
The brief added that the cancellation of the grants had not been accompanied by reasoning specific to each grant. The boilerplate letters, it said, “did not explain how the grant-funded programs engaged in any of the purportedly disqualifying activities.”
Show more
Jennifer Schuessler
April 4, 2025, 5:03 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Jennifer Schuessler
21 states are challenging Trump’s effort to dismantle the agency for the nation’s libraries.
Image
An exterior of a glass and concrete building, with people sitting on the sidewalk across the street.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services supports essential but unglamorous functions like database systems and collections management.Credit...Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
A coalition of 21 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the federal agency charged with supporting the nation’s libraries.
The lawsuit, brought by the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Hawaii and other states, was filed days after the agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, put its staff on leave and began cutting grants. The suit argues that the steep cuts there and at two other small agencies violate both the Constitution and other federal laws related to spending, usurping Congress’s power to decide how federal funds are spent.
The other agencies cited in the lawsuit are the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. They were among the seven agencies targeted by President Trump in a March 14 executive order titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which directed that they be reduced to the “maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”
The move against the library agency has drawn particular outcry. Dozens of library groups have issued statements condemning it as an attack on institutions that serve a broad swath of the public in every state. Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, said in a statement that the targeting of the three agencies was “an attack on vulnerable communities, small businesses and our children’s education.”
“The agencies they are attempting to dismantle support workers nationwide, provide funding to help minority-owned businesses, and make sure our libraries and museums stay open so children can engage in lifelong learning,” she said.
The library agency, created in 1996 and reauthorized most recently in 2018 in legislation signed by Mr. Trump, has an annual budget of nearly $290 million. It provides funding to libraries, museums and archives in every state and territory, with the bulk going to support essential but unglamorous functions like database systems and collections management.
Its largest program delivers roughly $160 million annually to state library agencies, which covers one-third to one-half of their budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, an independent group representing library officials.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services’s interim director is Keith E. Sonderling, the deputy secretary of labor, who replaced Cyndee Landrum, a career library professional. Shortly after being appointed in early March, Mr. Sonderling visited the agency with a team that included at least one staff member of the Department of Government Efficiency, who set up offices and obtained access to the agency’s computer systems.
On March 31, the agency placed most of its roughly 70 employees on administrative leave. Days later, it began sending letters to state library agencies, including those in California and Connecticut, informing them that their funding was being cut.
New York State received $8 million in 2024, which has been used to help fund literacy programs, improve internet access and support training for 200,000 staff members across the state’s 7,000 libraries. It also paid the salaries of 55 employees at the New York State Library in Albany, two-thirds of the total, according to a news release.
“Our libraries are more than just buildings,” Lauren Moore, the state librarian, said in the release. “They are vibrant hubs of knowledge, culture and community connection that empower individuals and strengthen society. We stand firm in our mission to ensure all New Yorkers continue to have equitable access to the library resources they need.”
The two other agencies cited in the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, have also begun deep cuts, according to the news release from New York’s attorney general.
The Minority Business Development Agency, which promotes minority-owned businesses, has reduced its staff to five from 40 and stopped making grants, according to the release. It said the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which promotes the mediation of labor disputes, had cut its staff of about 200 to fewer than 15 and “announced the termination of several of its core programs.”
A correction was made on April 4, 2025:
An earlier version of this article misstated the number of state attorneys general who participated in a lawsuit against the Trump administration. It is 21, not 20.
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more
Show more
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Lisa Friedman
April 4, 2025, 4:57 p.m. ETApril 4, 2025
Lisa Friedman
The Senate parliamentarian rules against a Republican bid to stop California’s ban on new gas-powered cars.
Image
An aerial view of cars in a parking lot with some spots marked “EV Charging Only”
California’s plan requires all new cars sold in the state by 2035 to be free of greenhouse gas emissions.Credit...Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Republicans in Congress cannot use an obscure legislative maneuver to stop California’s ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, the Senate parliamentarian ruled on Friday.
The decision dealt a blow to efforts by the Trump administration to quickly kill policies that promote electric vehicles.
Comments