health.com
BOSTON (AP) - Attorney generals of the United States from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. submitted a federal claim Tuesday difficult billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund whatever from crime prevention to food security to clinical research.

The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from depending on an unknown provision in the federal policy to cut grants that put on ´ t align with its . Since January, the suit argues that the administration has used that stipulation to cancel whole programs and thousands of grants that had been formerly granted to states and grantees.

"Defendants ´ choice to invoke the Clause to end grants based on changed company top priorities is unlawful numerous times over," the plaintiffs argued. "The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to allow terminations in only restricted circumstances and offers no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on recently determined company top priorities."

The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has actually utilized the stipulation for the basis of a "slash-and-burn project" to cut federal grants.

"Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the carpet out from under the States, and eliminating important federal funding on which States and their locals rely for important programs," the lawsuit included.

The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not right away respond to a demand made Tuesday afternoon for comment.

Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this claim was simply one of a number of the coalition of mainly Democratic states have filed over financing cuts. For the a lot of part, they have mostly succeeded in a string of legal victories to briefly stop cuts.

This one, though, may be the broadest obstacle to those moneying cuts.

"It ´ s clear that this President has actually gone to terrific lengths to obstruct federal financing to the states, however what may be lesser understood is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their illegal actions," Neronha stated in a statement. "Nearly every claim this union of Democratic attorney generals of the United States has filed against the Administration is related to its illegal and ostentatious attempts to rob Americans of standard programs and services upon which they rely. Most frequently, this is available in the form of prohibited federal funding cuts, which the Administration tries to validate through a so-called 'agency concerns clause."

Connecticut Chief Law Officer William Tong said the claim intended to stop funding cuts he explained as indiscriminate and unlawful.

"There is no 'since I put on ´ t like you ´ or 'due to the fact that I wear ´ t feel like it any longer ´ defunding stipulation in federal law that permits the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong stated in a statement. "Since his very first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can ´ t do that, and that ´ s why over and over again we have obstructed him in court and recovered our funding."

In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell stated the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended a $11 million arrangement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to numerous food circulation sites while the U.S. Epa terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to decrease asthma sets off in low-income neighborhoods.

"We can not stand idly by while this President continues to introduce extraordinary, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts ´ locals, institutions, and economy," Campbell said in a declaration.

The claim argues that the OMB promoted using the provision in question to validate the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that state federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the program goals or firm top priorities."

"The Trump Administration has actually declared that five words in this Clause-'no longer effectuates ... company concerns'-supply federal companies with practically unconfined authority to keep federal financing at any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding," the lawsuit stated.
osha.gov