Connect with us

News

Trump Halts Billions in Grants for Democratic Districts During Shutdown

Published

on

Trump Halts Billions in Grants for Democratic Districts During Shutdown

Two weeks into the government shutdown, the Trump administration has frozen or canceled nearly $28 billion that had been reserved for more than 200 projects primarily located in Democratic-led cities, congressional districts and states, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

Advertisement

Total amount of affected funding

By congressional district of grant recipient

Each of these infrastructure projects had received federal aid, sometimes after officials spent years pleading in Washington — only to see that money halted as President Trump has looked to punish Democrats over the course of the fiscal stalemate.

Advertisement

The Times conducted its analysis by examining federal funding records, which include details about the city and state where each grant recipient is based. The projects include new investments in clean energy, upgrades to the electric grid and fixes to the nation’s transportation infrastructure, primarily in Democratic strongholds, such as New York and California.

Advertisement

Total affected funding, by congressional district

Advertisement

Ala.

Advertisement

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Advertisement

Colo.

Del.

Advertisement

Fla.

Ga.

Idaho

Advertisement

Ill.

Ind.

Advertisement

Iowa

Kan.

Ky.

Advertisement

La.

Maine

Advertisement

Md.

Mass.

Mich.

Advertisement

Minn.

Miss.

Advertisement

Mo.

Mont.

Neb.

Advertisement

Nev.

N.H.

Advertisement

N.J.

N.M.

N.Y.

Advertisement

N.C.

N.D.

Advertisement

Ohio

Okla.

Ore.

Advertisement

Pa.

S.C.

Advertisement

S.D.

Tenn.

Texas

Advertisement

Utah

Vt.

Advertisement

Va.

Wash.

W.Va.

Advertisement

Wis.

Wyo.

Advertisement

Circles sized by total amount of affected grant funding

In some cases, recipients had started to receive portions of the federal aid, only to become casualties in a funding battle that has no end in sight.

Mr. Trump’s aides have offered a series of explanations for the administration’s decision to pause or terminate grants, claiming in some cases that the spending would have been wasteful or in conflict with the president’s priorities. Since returning to office, Mr. Trump has been particularly aggressive in cutting federal investments to combat climate change.

Advertisement

But the budgetary moves coincide with the president’s public pledges to use the shutdown to slash spending favored by Democrats. He has described the federal stoppage as an “unprecedented opportunity” to make some cuts permanent.

Many Democrats said that the announcements fit a broader pattern at the White House, where Mr. Trump has claimed vast authority to reprogram the nation’s budget, even though the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

Advertisement

In doing so, Democratic lawmakers said the result could harm their cities and states, upending work that would have helped residents regardless of their political party.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Total affected funding, by congressional district

Advertisement

N.Y. 10th

Advertisement

Dan Goldman

12 $17.84 bil.

Ill. 7th

Danny Davis

9 $2.37 bil.

Calif. 12th

Lateefah Simon

10 $1.40 bil.

Wash. 10th

Marilyn Strickland

1 $995.1 mil.

Calif. 7th

Doris Matsui

4 $655.3 mil.

Calif. 32th

Advertisement

Brad Sherman

1 $499.5 mil.

Minn. 4th

Betty McCollum

2 $465.9 mil.

Ill. 3rd

Delia Ramirez

14 $365.4 mil.

Colo. 2nd

Joe Neguse

15 $352.5 mil.

Mass. 2nd

James McGovern

3 $114.6 mil.

Ore. 2nd

Advertisement

Cliff Bentz

5 $294.3 mil.

Mass. 7th

Ayanna Pressley

9 $207.6 mil.

Mass. 5th

Katherine Clark

9 $180.3 mil.

Mo. 2nd

Ann Wagner

1 $189.2 mil.

N.Y. 20th

Paul Tonko

25 $129.3 mil.

Md. 7th

Advertisement

Kweisi Mfume

3 $158.9 mil.

Calif. 2nd

Jared Huffman

4 $129.1 mil.

Calif. 16th

Sam Liccardo

16 $75.2 mil.

Colo. 7th

Brittany Pettersen

13 $74.2 mil.

Calif. 17th

Ro Khanna

6 $25.9 mil.

Minn. 5th

Advertisement

Ilhan Omar

5 $76.5 mil.

Calif. 5th

Tom McClintock

2 $79 mil.

Ore. 1st

Suzanne Bonamici

11 $73.6 mil.

Wash. 2nd

Rick Larsen

3 $47.8 mil.

Calif. 28th

Judy Chu

5 $53 mil.

N.M. 3rd

Advertisement

Teresa Leger Fernandez

2 $65.4 mil.

Calif. 34th

Jimmy Gomez

3 $60.3 mil.

Colo. 1st

Diana DeGette

4 $57.6 mil.

N.M. 2nd

Gabe Vasquez

4 $56.1 mil.

N.M. 1st

Melanie Stansbury

3 $52.3 mil.

Minn. 8th

Advertisement

Pete Stauber

1 $49.8 mil.

Calif. 6th

Ami Bera

1 $50 mil.

Wash. 3rd

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

1 $46 mil.

Calif. 47th

Dave Min

3 $41.7 mil.

Calif. 19th

Jimmy Panetta

3 $30.8 mil.

Mass. 3rd

Advertisement

Lori Trahan

3 $39.7 mil.

Calif. 15th

Kevin Mullin

5 $31.6 mil.

Colo. 8th

Gabe Evans

2 $32.9 mil.

Ill. 13th

Nikki Budzinski

7 $27.6 mil.

Mich. 6th

Debbie Dingell

1 $30.7 mil.

Ore. 3rd

Advertisement

Maxine Dexter

2 $15 mil.

Hawaii 1st

Ed Case

5 $24.5 mil.

N.Y. 23th

Nicholas Langworthy

2 $27.4 mil.

N.Y. 17th

Michael Lawler

2 $26.2 mil.

Conn. 5th

Jahana Hayes

3 $20.1 mil.

Mass. 6th

Advertisement

Seth Moulton

3 $17.5 mil.

N.Y. 16th

George Latimer

1 $20.4 mil.

Minn. 7th

Michelle Fischbach

1 $19.6 mil.

Calif. 25th

Raul Ruiz

1 $18.4 mil.

Calif. 4th

Mike Thompson

2 $16.6 mil.

Del.

Advertisement

Sarah McBride

3 $15.3 mil.

Mass. 9th

Bill Keating

3 $6.4 mil.

Conn. 1st

John Larson

4 $8.2 mil.

N.Y. 19th

Josh Riley

5 $10.4 mil.

Md. 4th

Glenn Ivey

4 $11 mil.

R.I. 1st

Advertisement

Gabe Amo

2 $11.5 mil.

N.Y. 3rd

Thomas Suozzi

1 $11.2 mil.

Calif. 49th

Mike Levin

2 $10.5 mil.

Mass. 8th

Stephen Lynch

2 $8.8 mil.

Calif. 42th

Robert Garcia

1 $9.7 mil.

Wash. 5th

Advertisement

Michael Baumgartner

4 $8 mil.

Md. 3rd

Sarah Elfreth

4 $6.8 mil.

Conn. 2nd

Joe Courtney

3 $7.8 mil.

Calif. 50th

Scott Peters

1 $6.3 mil.

S.C. 4th

William Timmons

1 $1.7 mil.

Calif. 43th

Advertisement

Maxine Waters

1 $6.3 mil.

Calif. 39th

Mark Takano

1 $6 mil.

Wash. 7th

Pramila Jayapal

1 $2.9 mil.

Vt.

Becca Balint

2 $2.8 mil.

N.Y. 22th

John Mannion

1 $5 mil.

Calif. 37th

Advertisement

Sydney Kamlager-Dove

1 $3.4 mil.

N.H. 1st

Chris Pappas

1 $4.7 mil.

N.Y. 25th

Joseph Morelle

1 $4.8 mil.

Conn. 3rd

Rosa DeLauro

1 $4.4 mil.

Md. 1st

Andy Harris

1 $4.5 mil.

N.J. 6th

Advertisement

Frank Pallone

2 $4.7 mil.

Calif. 14th

Eric Swalwell

2 $3 mil.

Calif. 9th

Josh Harder

2 $4.2 mil.

N.Y. 12th

Jerrold Nadler

2 $3.8 mil.

Ill. 16th

Darin LaHood

1 $2.9 mil.

Conn. 4th

Advertisement

Jim Himes

1 $3 mil.

Ill. 10th

Bradley Schneider

1 $2.9 mil.

Ill. 5th

Mike Quigley

1 $2.7 mil.

Calif. 20th

Vince Fong

1 $2.1 mil.

Calif. 36th

Ted Lieu

2 $2.4 mil.

Md. 5th

Advertisement

Steny Hoyer

1 $2.5 mil.

Ill. 9th

Janice Schakowsky

1 $2.5 mil.

Ore. 4th

Valerie Hoyle

1 $1.7 mil.

R.I. 2nd

Seth Magaziner

1 $1.9 mil.

Calif. 10th

Mark DeSaulnier

1 $2.1 mil.

N.Y. 26th

Advertisement

Timothy Kennedy

1 $1.8 mil.

Ill. 17th

Eric Sorensen

1 $1.8 mil.

Calif. 24th

Salud Carbajal

1 $1.3 mil.

Calif. 11th

Nancy Pelosi

1 $1.9 mil.

N.J. 12th

Bonnie Watson Coleman

1 $2 mil.

N.Y. 13th

Advertisement

Adriano Espaillat

1 $1.2 mil.

N.Y. 9th

Yvette Clarke

1 $1.1 mil.

N.Y. 6th

Grace Meng

1 $1.5 mil.

Ga. 5th

Nikema Williams

1 $1.1 mil.

Ill. 11th

Bill Foster

1 $1.1 mil.

Calif. 22th

Advertisement

David Valadao

1 $1 mil.

New delays in transportation aid

So far, the administration has targeted essentially two broad tranches of federal aid. First, the White House has held up billions of dollars in previously approved transportation funding for New York and Chicago.

Advertisement

In New York, the administration stopped the delivery of about $18 billion in pledged investments for two major projects: the Second Avenue subway, which traverses the east side of Manhattan, and the Hudson River tunnel, which serves as the primary rail route through New York City and along the northeast corridor. Funding for the tunnel, in particular, came only after years of wrangling, as New York officials and their counterparts in New Jersey looked to repair a roughly 115-year-old passage from damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy while improving rail capacity.

In Chicago, the Trump administration said it paused about $2.1 billion in money pledged for the city’s own transit upgrades, including an extension of its rail system into the South Side. Groundbreaking was expected to begin in 2026 after years of work to shore up federal funding for the expansion.

In both cases, the White House said it was pausing the delivery of federal dollars so that it could review the cities’ contracting policies. The administration sought to determine if leaders had made construction-related decisions on the basis of race, diversity or inclusion.

Advertisement

The moves came at a moment when the president was at war with key leaders from those states. Mr. Trump has frequently attacked Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer, two New York Democrats who lead their party in the House and Senate, for refusing to bow to his demands on spending. The Transportation Department claimed that the two men were to blame for the slowdown in aid, since the agency could not complete its review quickly during the shutdown.

Separately, federal officials have repeatedly tried to withhold security and counterterrorism funding from New York, though the state won back some of the money.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has similarly gone after Chicago and its Democratic mayor, Brandon Johnson, along with the Democratic governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, saying this month that both should be jailed.

Deep cuts to energy funding

The Trump administration also moved to terminate another tranche of money outright. Two days into the shutdown, it announced it would end roughly $7.6 billion in previously approved grants for 223 energy-related projects in 16 states, 14 of which are led by Democrats. Those cuts were later expanded.

Advertisement

The cancellations were the latest attempt by Mr. Trump and his top aides to revoke climate- and infrastructure-related funding adopted under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a series of actions that have been challenged in court. The Energy Department said that it made its decision because the projects were “not economically viable” or did not advance Mr. Trump’s energy policy agenda.

Many of the projects are located in Democratic-led congressional districts, prompting lawmakers to question in recent days if there might be political motivations behind the administration’s actions.

Advertisement

The cuts targeted a vast range of projects, including efforts to prevent power outages and modernize energy grids — a bipartisan goal — as well as investments in newer energy sources, like hydrogen. The Trump administration revoked its plan to provide up to $1.2 billion for the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, known as ARCHES, which aimed to help develop a clean-burning power source for heavy-duty trucks, port operators and other major drivers of harmful emissions.

The Biden administration announced the award in 2023, nearly two years after Democrats and Republicans adopted a bipartisan package to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

More cuts to come

Advertisement

As the shutdown enters its third week, Mr. Trump and his aides have threatened additional cuts. The president in recent days has described the closure as an opportunity “handed to us on a silver platter” to lay off federal workers, slash federal agencies and reduce other funding, perhaps in permanent ways.

One potential target is Portland, Ore. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, signaled this month that the Trump administration could block some unspecified federal aid to the city, which is led by a Democrat, because of ongoing protests of the president’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

To analyze the impact of cancelled and paused grants, The Times began by compiling a list of affected grants. The list was then cross-referenced against data from USAspending.gov, where detailed information about each grant was collected. The figures shown on the page reflect the total amount of known funding that has not yet been outlaid.

To determine the impact by congressional district, each grant was grouped into the district where the grantee is located. In some cases, the work being funded by the grant may not occur in the same district, or could occur across multiple districts and states. The exact monetary allocation across those work sites is not known. Grants where the recipient could not be matched to a congressional district are not shown.

Advertisement

For some large projects, government data only shows currently allocated funds, instead of the entire cost of the project. In cases where this is known, the grant data was supplemented by additional reporting to better reflect the amount of affected funding.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending