The Trump administration’s directive to pause and review trillions of dollars in federal financial assistance faced immediate resistance from critics in Washington and Connecticut, including the threat of litigation from the state attorney general’s office.

The memo sent to federal agencies late Monday set off a scramble as state agencies in Connecticut and across the country start to assess what effects it could have on critical programs. The White House’s Office of Budget and Management directed a temporary pause by 5 p.m. Tuesday on grants and loans that are used “to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”

In that memo, Acting OMB Director Matthew Vaeth argued that Donald Trump’s victory gives his administration a “mandate” to review $3 trillion in federal financial assistance and ensure it complies with the dozens of executive orders signed over the past week.

“In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” the memo said.

The White House’s latest order sparked major confusion and fear across the federal government and for states that rely on federal financial assistance. And members of Congress have disputed the legality of the order, arguing that Trump does not have the authority to stop funds from going out that have been approved by Congress.

That has also prompted Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and other state attorneys general to threaten legal action against the Trump administration.

“This is a full assault on Connecticut families — an unprecedented and blatantly lawless and unconstitutional attack on every corner and level of our government and economy. Attorneys general across the country are preparing imminent legal action to protect our states,” Tong said in a statement Tuesday.

“Connecticut and my team are front and center in this fight and will provide updates in real time to Connecticut as this unfolds,” he continued. “Today is not a day for politics — everyone irrespective of party should be standing with Connecticut against this devastating attack on our state.”

The scope and potential consequences of the directive remained unclear on Tuesday morning. The memo noted that it would not affect Social Security and Medicare benefits or assistance “provided directly to individuals.” Officials across Connecticut are still trying to determine what this could mean for specific state departments.

“The Lamont administration is deeply concerned about the federal government’s recent plan to freeze spending on grants and loans. We are closely monitoring this development, analyzing the impact, and remain in close contact with federal partners and our congressional delegation as we develop ways to protect these critical programs,” Office of Policy and Management spokesman Chris Collibee said in a statement. “We plan to share more details and can assure Connecticut that the Lamont administration will do everything we can to ensure residents have access to food, housing, education, and other vital supports.”

Other agencies across Connecticut were directed to provide the same statement when asked about how the freeze could specifically affect their programs.

Still, the memo set off a full-court press Tuesday by Democrats in Washington about potential implications and disruptions if such funding is cut off. Lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, ran down a list of programs that could face cuts: Title I funding for schools that help low-income families, cancer research, resources for child care and housing, disaster relief efforts and transportation projects.

“Trump’s actions would wreak havoc … in red and blue communities everywhere,” U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said at a Tuesday press conference with Senate Democrats. “This is funding that communities are expecting and this memo is creating chaos and confusion about whether these resources will be available to them.”

Depending on the federal funding potentially delayed, Trump might do more harm to his political base than to the rest of the country. Most of the nation’s wealth already is centered on blue states. 

According to a September analysis from Pew Charitable Trusts, states had enough reserves to operate for a median of 48.1 days. And of the 25 states with rainy day funds below the national median, 14 of them voted for Trump last November.

Connecticut has the reserves and strong cash position that would enable it to weather a delay in federal funding transfers longer than many other states. It ranked 17th in the nation last year with enough reserves to operate 60.4 days. And while Connecticut’s budget reserve stood at $3.3 billion during the 2023-24 fiscal year, it currently stands at a record-setting $4.1 billion.

Staff writer Keith Phaneuf contributed to this story.

This story will be updated.

It has been reported that the Mexican government plans to shut down that nation’s highly respected National Institute for Access to Information (INAI), the country’s Freedom of Information (FOI) agency. The responsibility for guaranteeing access to government information will then presumably fall to government departments subject to presidential control. In other words, a case of the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

INAI was modeled in significant part on the Connecticut’s FOI Commission. Mexico studied the Connecticut law and its commission and learned from our successes and failures.

Unfortunately what Mexico is now experiencing with the likely closing of INAI has been happening, to one degree or another, in many countries throughout the world – including supposedly democratic ones. The United States has not been immune to this threat. Nor has Connecticut.

For example, it often takes our federal government (which has no independent FOI enforcement agency) years to process even a simple request for information and in many cases government agencies deny requests with questionable claims of exemptions. The only option then for a disappointed requester is to go to the expense of filing a lawsuit, which in itself can take years to resolve. And in Connecticut, numerous unnecessary exemptions have been added to its FOI Act and there have been several notable attempts to curtail the FOI Commission’s independence and funding.

Connecticut’s FOI Act turns 50 in 2025. The law was enacted in 1975 during the post-Watergate reform era. Over time, it too has been weakened. But remarkably, it has largely endured thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the commission and its staff, supporting nonprofit organizations, such as the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government and the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information, and, importantly, the many Connecticut citizens who rely on the commission to administer and enforce the FOI law.

That is why the commemoration of the 50^th Anniversary of FOI in Connecticut is so significant: it has survived substantially intact for half a century where in many other places similar laws have not. The law still remains a vital – and sometimes the only – tool for citizens and the press to uncover government inefficiency, waste and corruption.

But laws and institutions that promote government transparency and accountability require constant vigilance. The Connecticut FOI experience over the past 50 years proves that such vigilance does indeed work.

We should be justifiably proud that Connecticut has for 50 years maintained an effective and credible FOI law that provides its citizens with meaningful government oversight and accountability. The fact that the law has survived to its golden anniversary is a tremendous achievement.

But we can only hope to move that record forward for another 50 years or more with continued vigilance. And by doing so, we can keep Connecticut as a beacon of open government for the entire world well into the future.

Pearlman was formerly the executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government and the Connecticut Council on Freedom of information.

Gov. Ned Lamont on Monday announced the nominations of 20 jurists to serve in positions on Connecticut’s courts.

By Ronni Newton

Gov. Ned Lamont announced multiple judicial nominations on Monday that are being forwarded to the Connecticut General Assembly for approval, including Honorable William H. Bright, Jr. as an associate justice of the Supreme Court and the Honorable Robin L. Wilson as a judge of the Appellate Court, and among the 13 he also nominated to become judges of the Superior Court, three are from West Hartford.

The West Hartford residents who are nominees, all women, include Kaitlin A. Halloran, Angeline Ioannou, and Latonia C. Williams.

Halloran, 41, is a graduate of New York University and obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Since the firm she co-founded in 2010, Halloran & Halloran, merged with BBB Attorneys in 2021, she has focused on litigation of complex cases, and has also maintained an active pro bono special education practice assisting families in navigating the system and accessing services,

Ioannou, 55, is a graduate of Sacred Heart University and obtained her Juris Doctor from Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, DE (now Widener University Commonwealth Law School). She has more than 25 years experience in the litigation of complex tort and medical malpractice matters involving wrongful death and catastrophic injury, and is managing partner of the Hartford office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, LLP.

Williams, 41, is a graduate of Howard University and obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. As a partner at Shipman and Goodwin LLP, her practice focuses on commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts, including commercial bankruptcies, landlord-tenant disputes, and commercial foreclosures. She also serves on the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Client Security Fund Committee and the board of directors for Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut, Inc.

“Nominating judges to serve on our courts is one of the most important responsibilities of a governor, especially because judges are the final authority on the interpretation of the law and the constitution, and for ensuring that justice is administered fairly and without prejudice,” Lamont said in a statement. “Judge Bright has been an excellent leader of our Appellate Court over these last four and a half years, and he has had an impressive career handling all types of cases both on the trial and appellate levels. Likewise, Judge Wilson is an incredibly well-respected member of Connecticut’s legal community, having served in the Superior Court for more than two decades. I am confident that these nominees each have the high standards and qualifications the people of Connecticut deserve to have serving for them on the bench.”

In addition to the three from West Hartford, the other 10 Superior Court judicial nominees announced by the governor on Monday are:

• David G. Bothwell, 55, of Fairfield
• Tracie C. Brown, 53, of Windsor
• Michael C. D’Agostino, 53, of Hamden
• Jesse Giddings, 43, of North Haven
• Diana M. Gomez, 42, of Easton
• Donald R. Green, 58, of Meriden
• Kevin C. Kelly, 65, of Stratford
• Daniel Shapiro, 58, of Westbrook
• Kevin Shea, 58, of Madison
• Yonatan Zamir, 48, of Woodbridge

According to Monday’s announcement by the governor, there were currently 22 judicial vacancies on the Connecticut Superior Court.

Lamont also is nominating two jurists to serve as family support magistrates (Benedict R. Daigle, 43, of Cromwell and LeeAnn Neal, 39, of Waterbury) and three (Michael L. Anderson, 54, of North Stonington; Christine Conley, 42, of Groton; and Colette Griffin, 66, of Newtown) as administrative law judges on the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Like what you see here? Click here to subscribe to We-Ha’s newsletter so you’ll always be in the know about what’s happening in West Hartford! Click the blue button below to become a supporter of We-Ha.com and our efforts to continue producing quality journalism.