Connect with us

Politics

Christie ramps up attacks on Haley as she closes gap with Trump in New Hampshire polls

Published

on

Christie ramps up attacks on Haley as she closes gap with Trump in New Hampshire polls

Read this article for free!

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

With less than three weeks to go until New Hampshire holds the first primary in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is turning up the volume on his verbal attacks on rival former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

The former New Jersey governor is accusing Haley of acting “immature” in response to her viral comment that New Hampshire voters “correct” the Iowa caucus results. He argues that if former President Trump, the GOP nomination front-runner, asked Haley to be his running mate, “she would take it in five seconds.”

Advertisement

Haley, the former South Carolina governor who later served as United Nations ambassador in the Trump administration, has enjoyed plenty of momentum in recent months and has soared in the latest polls in New Hampshire, which suggest she has significantly closed the gap with Trump.

However, this week, two new comments by Haley were instantly used as ammunition by Christie, who is once again staking his presidential campaign on a strong finish in New Hampshire as he runs a second time for the White House. Christie stands in third place in most Granite State surveys, far behind Trump and Haley but ahead of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and multimillionaire entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

FIRST ON FOX: INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIVE GROUP LAUNCHES MASSIVE AD BLITZ ON BEHALF OF HALEY

Campaigning in Milford, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Haley told the large crowd that “we have an opportunity to get this right. And I know we’ll get it right, and I trust you. I trust every single one of you. You know how to do this. You know Iowa starts it. You know that you correct it.”

Pointing to her home state, which on Feb. 24 will hold the first southern contest in the Republican presidential primary schedule, Haley added “and then my sweet state of South Carolina brings it home.”

Advertisement

The comment appeared to be tailored to Granite Staters, and the crowd cheered Haley’s remarks.

WAR OF WORDS BETWEEN HALEY AND DESANTIS REACHES FEVER PITCH

On Thursday night, Christie took aim.

“You don’t have to correct anything that Iowa does or doesn’t do. That’s not New Hampshire’s responsibility. Your responsibility is to do what you think is right. You don’t have to worry about what Iowa does,” he told the crowd at a town hall in this New Hampshire town along the state’s southern border with Massachusetts.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate, speaks with voters at a town hall in Hollis, New Hampshire, on Jan. 4, 2024. (Fox News – Paul Steinhauser)

Advertisement

Minutes later, he told reporters, “I think people in Iowa saw here yesterday that she’s willing to say anything to an audience to try to curry their favor.”

“She mocks Iowa voters just to try to get a laugh out of New Hampshire voters,” he argued. “I mean that’s like just immature. Grow up.”

Christie was not the only rival to blast Haley.

DeSantis, who is staking much of his campaign on a strong Iowa finish, charged Thursday in a local radio interview in the Hawkeye State that Haley was “incredibly disrespectful to Iowans to say somehow their votes need to be corrected.”

Haley, during a CNN town hall Thursday in Iowa, said her comment was intended as a joke, noting “we’ve done 150 plus town halls. You got to have some fun, too.”

Advertisement

FIRST ON FOX: HALEY FUNDRAISING SOARS THE PAST THREE MONTHS

In recent weeks, DeSantis and Christie have taken aim at Haley for not being vocal enough in her criticism of Trump. Both candidates have argued Haley has an ulterior motive.

“She will not answer directly, and she owes you an answer to this: Will she accept a vice presidential nomination from Donald Trump? Yes or no?” DeSantis said at a town hall in New Hampshire last month.

Additionally, Christie, on multiple occasions over the past month, has emphasized that, “Ron DeSantis and I have both ruled out accepting the vice presidency from Donald Trump. Nikki Haley has not… That’s why she’s not saying strong things against Donald Trump.” 

Haley has frequently repeated that she is not running for second place in the GOP 2024 presidential primary.

Advertisement

Given the opportunity in a Fox News Digital interview Tuesday ahead of a town hall in New Hampshire to categorically rule out serving as Trump’s running mate if asked, Haley reiterated she is running to win.

“I have said from the very beginning I don’t play for second. It’s offensive for anybody to think that I would do all of this to play for second. And so I have said that. I will continue to say that. If people aren’t satisfied with that, I don’t know what else to say,” Haley said.

Haley also told Fox News that Christie and DeSantis have “criticized me for everything. Let’s be clear. That’s what happens when you’re losing.”

ONLY ON FOX: HALEY PUSHES BACK BUT DOESN’T CATEGORICALLY RULE OUT BEING TRUMP’S RUNNING MATE

Pointing to the Fox News Digital interview, Christie told reporters on Thursday night “she won’t answer. She gives this bull answer ‘I never play for second.’ Like, what’s that mean? It’s simply yes or no. Would you accept vice president from Trump or wouldn’t you.”

Advertisement

“She won’t answer. And you know what that means in politics when you don’t answer a question. That means it’s because you know the answer and you don’t want to say it out loud,” Christie claimed. “I will tell you right now, if Donald Trump offered her vice president, she would take it in five seconds. Five seconds. And that’s why she’s not answering the question.”

Pointing to South Carolina’s Feb. 24 Republican presidential primary, Christie argued that Haley “wants the wiggle room to be able to do that later on when she doesn’t do as well as everyone thinks she’ll do here and when she loses her own home state, which she’s going to do.”

In an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Haley claimed that ruling out serving as running mate would make “the news for days” and stifle her momentum.

Christie, a longtime vocal GOP critic of Trump, has faced plenty of pressure in recent weeks to drop out of the race and back Haley to prevent any fracturing of the anti-Trump vote.

Referencing the crowd of close to 300 people who showed up at his town hall, Christie said “you saw all these people tonight who don’t want me out of this race. They want to vote for me. And I suspect a lot of these people here, if I dropped out, wouldn’t vote at all, because she’s unwilling to take Trump on.”

Advertisement

When asked by Fox News where he needs to finish in New Hampshire to continue on, Christie said “I have to come in second or like a very, very close third. I don’t think there’s any mystery to that. That’s what I have to do.”

 

Trump holds an extremely formidable double-digit advantage over DeSantis and Haley in Iowa – whose Jan. 15 caucuses kick off the GOP nominating calendar – and enjoys an even more massive lead in national polling in the Republican race.

However, with the latest polls indicating Haley narrowing the gap in New Hampshire, where independent voters have long played an influential role in the state’s storied primary, Trump’s campaign this week launched an attack ad on Haley in the Granite State.

Former President Trump speaks at a campaign rally, Saturday, Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, New Hampshire. (AP Photo/Reba Saldanha)

Advertisement

Neil Levesque, the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, told Fox News that “Haley has what every candidate wishes they had – which is momentum. And she’s closing the gap with Trump.”

Haley landed a big boost last month with the endorsement of popular Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who has joined Haley on the campaign trail at her town halls since backing her.

She is also supported by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Action, the political arm of an influential and deep-pocketed conservative public advocacy group with strong grassroots outreach.

Greg Moore, a longtime New Hampshire-based conservative activist and an AFP Action senior advisor, emphasized that “one thing we know about the New Hampshire primary is that they are often decided by momentum. We’ve seen that – for example – with John McCain twice, where he was a candidate with momentum in both 2000 and 2008. That’s where you want to be. Frankly, I think I’d rather be where Nikki Haley is right now than where Donald Trump is.”

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Advertisement

Politics

US submarine sinks Iranian warship by torpedo in a first since World War II

Published

on

US submarine sinks Iranian warship by torpedo in a first since World War II

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A U.S. submarine sank a prized Iranian warship by torpedo, the first such sinking of an enemy ship since World War II, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Wednesday morning.

Hegseth joined Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine at the Pentagon to provide an update to reporters on “Operation Epic Fury” in Iran.

“An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” Hegseth said. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two. Like in that war, back when we were still the War Department. We are fighting to win.”

Caine said that an Iranian vessel was “effectively neutralized” in a Navy “fast attack” using a single Mark 48 torpedo. He added that the U.S. Navy achieved “immediate effect, sending the warship to the bottom of the sea.”

Advertisement

WATCH HEGSETH’S ANNOUNCEMENT:

Hegseth said that the U.S. Navy sank the Iranian warship, the Soleimani. The flagship was named for Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer who served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who the U.S. killed in a January 2020 drone strike during President Donald Trump’s first term.

“The Iranian Navy rests at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Combat ineffective, decimated, destroyed, defeated. Pick your adjective,” Hegseth said. “In fact, last night we sunk their prize ship, the Soleimani. Looks like POTUS got him twice. Their navy, not a factor. Pick your adjective. It is no more.”

This map shows U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian naval forces as of March 1. (Fox News)

Hegseth also told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. and Israel will soon achieve “complete control” over Iranian airspace after Iran’s missile capabilities were drastically diminished in the four days of fighting.

Advertisement

US ‘WINNING DECISIVELY’ AGAINST IRAN, WILL ACHIEVE ‘COMPLETE CONTROL’ OF AIRSPACE WITHIN DAYS, HEGSETH SAYS

“More bombers and more fighters are arriving just today and now, with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500 pound, one thousand pound and 2,000 pound laser-guided precision gravity bombs, of which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile,” he said.

The war has killed more than 1,000 people in Iran and dozens in Lebanon, while U.S. officials said six American troops were killed in a fatal drone strike in Kuwait.

Thousands of travelers have been left stranded across the Middle East.

This map shows security and travel updates for Americans regarding countries in the Middle East region. (Fox News)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Caine told reporters that the U.S. military is helping thousands of Americans stranded in the Middle East after the U.S. State Department urged citizens to leave more than a dozen countries.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.

Related Article

Israel says fighter jet took down Iranian warplane, the first shootdown of its kind
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Sen. Padilla preps for Trump trying to seize control of elections via emergency order

Published

on

Sen. Padilla preps for Trump trying to seize control of elections via emergency order

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.

“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.

Advertisement

“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.

The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.

The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.

If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.

Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.

Advertisement

Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.

Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.

Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Trump is also pushing for the passage of the SAVE Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.

In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.

Advertisement

Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”

Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.

Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.

Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.

In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.

Advertisement

McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.

Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.

“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Published

on

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Plaintiff Council for Opportunity in Education

Defendant U.S. Department of Education

Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025

Advertisement

Injunction

Plaintiff Dallas County, Tex.

Defendant Kennedy

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Defendant Kennedy Jr.

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on July 21, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Colorado

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on April 1, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Housing Authority of the County of San Diego

Defendant Turner

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Alliance to End Homelessness

Defendant Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 1, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Washington

Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on July 16, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Arizona

Defendant Environmental Protection Agency

Filed in the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, 2025

Plaintiff Open Technology Fund

Advertisement

Defendant Lake

Filed in the District of Columbia on March 20, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Public Radio

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on May 27, 2025

Plaintiff San Francisco Unified School District

Defendant AmeriCorps

Filed in the Northern District of California on March 10, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Filed in the District of Maine on June 17, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Latino Arts

Defendant National Endowment for the Arts

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on March 6, 2025

lost

President Trump has tried to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to coerce states, punish opponents, remake programs and impose his views. His targets have repeatedly sued to stop him, and the courts have repeatedly rebuked him — only for the president to try again and again.

Advertisement

Take just these seven cases, all of them tied to the administration’s efforts to block funds from “sanctuary” communities, those that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Last February, a coalition of cities and counties sued over executive orders directing agencies to shut off such funds.

Advertisement

Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025

injunction

A judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting those directives while the case proceeded.

The same day, the Department of Transportation told communities they must cooperate with immigration enforcement to get federal transportation dollars.

Advertisement

Twenty states, led by California, soon sued …

Plaintiff California

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost in district court.

Advertisement

The Department of Homeland Security tried to withhold emergency management funds. Another lawsuit followed …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant FEMA

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost.

Advertisement

Then D.H.S. tried reducing counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states instead …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Noem

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Sept. 29, 2025

lost

… and again, the administration lost.

Advertisement

In the past year, funds for housing, transit, health and public safety have all been conditioned on cooperation with immigration.

Plaintiff King County

Advertisement

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Fresno

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Chicago

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Injunctions regularly followed.

These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.

Advertisement

With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.

“Anyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,” said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. “And that’s a new thing.”

The president has threatened money to states that don’t adopt his policies, universities that don’t bend to his will, hospitals that don’t alter their services, school districts that don’t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don’t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.

Advertisement

These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the “power of the purse,” still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases — 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.

“You would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don’t do that action anymore,” said Rob Bonta, who as California’s attorney general has brought many of those suits. “He’s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.”

Advertisement

The administration’s approach has amounted to “a game of three-card monte” in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn’t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: “‘Oh, well, you think I can’t do this thing over there? Well I’m going to do it over here.’”

Presidents have long sought to steer funding to advance their priorities, designing programs with Congress or awarding competitive grants to communities that emphasize certain ideas. But the Trump administration has gone much further: terminating en masse funds that were already awarded; imposing new conditions on future grants that flout federal rule making; and blocking money to whole programs and agencies created by Congress.

The groups that have sued represent a fraction of everyone affected; many have lacked the means or the will to go to court. But these 198 cases, as of the beginning of March, have pried open a public view into the breadth of the administration’s tactics. And one year in, they have produced a lopsided record of rulings.

Advertisement

When plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Judge Beryl A. Howell, Obama appointee, Oct. 7, 2025

Just because a pronouncement comes from the president does not make it true, even if expressed in the form of an executive order, and even then, does not supersede the law.

lost

Advertisement

American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education

Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, Trump appointee, Aug. 14, 2025

By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.

lost

Advertisement

Michigan v. Noem

Magistrate Judge Amy E. Potter, Dec. 23, 2025

None of this appears consistent with Congressional intent or FEMA’s mission.

Advertisement

lost

The administration declined to comment on the record. But a White House official authorized to describe the strategy said the Trump administration is restoring power to the presidency that previous presidents have shied away from, while tapping that power to prevent fraud and steward taxpayer dollars. The groups bringing all these lawsuits, that person said, are the ones using the courts in a hostile campaign to hamstring the president.

The administration has notably walked away from some defeats without appealing them. But it is counting on a better record before appeals court judges, as has been the case more broadly. Among cases it has appealed, appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings, often with judges appointed by Mr. Trump in his favor.

Advertisement

But even when it is losing in court, plaintiffs’ attorneys and legal scholars said, the administration may still find it is winning on its own terms.

‘Undeserving recipients’

Alongside that first sanctuary cities directive, early executive orders outlining the president’s core agenda aimed to end all “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the government, to eradicate “gender ideology,” to reverse the “green new deal,” and to enforce “election integrity.” All of them proposed leveraging federal funds to do it.

Advertisement

These cases show the administration pulling that lever in numerous ways.

It has tried to set conditions with no clear relationship to program goals (like immigration requirements for highway funds). It has threatened funding to force states to share information (voter rolls, food aid lists). It has told grantees they must pledge to comply with orders the president hasn’t issued yet. And it has invoked criminal and financial penalties if they break those pledges.

Advertisement

It has terminated even small sums, targeting with laser precision opponents of the president (who then sued):

The American Bar Association lost $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants after the administration attacked the group.

Advertisement

Plaintiff American Bar Association

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the District of Columbia on April 23, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

The American Academy of Pediatrics lost nearly $12 million in grants in apparent retaliation for its advocacy of vaccines and gender-affirming care.

Plaintiff American Academy of Pediatrics

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 24, 2025

injunction

Maine lost access to support for school meals as Gov. Janet Mills was fighting with the president over transgender athletes.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant Department of Agriculture

Filed in the District of Maine on April 7, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

The government backed down with the American Bar Association and Maine after judges issued initial rulings, only to turn its focus elsewhere.

“You can see that the government’s posture is essentially: Do the thing that’s going to make the White House happy, or get the press release about sticking it to trans people,” said Kevin Love Hubbard, a former D.O.J. attorney who represented the government before leaving in August. Agencies are doing that, he said, “without thinking about then having to go into court.”

Advertisement

Today, he is suing the government in several funding cases with the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.

Most of these nearly 200 cases are about disfavored categories of recipients like sanctuary jurisdictions, Harvard researchers or organizations serving transgender people.

“We are the undeserving recipients, at least in the mind of our current administration,” said Leesa Manion, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which encompasses Seattle. “The goal all along was to ensure that we — the undesirables — do not get our fair share. Whether it works or doesn’t work, if that’s your overarching goal, you just keep evolving your technique.”

Advertisement

The administration is now increasingly targeting blue states as such a category, too.

That began during the government shutdown last October, when the White House budget director Russell Vought announced the administration would cancel nearly $8 billion in energy projects in 16 states — all where voters had supported Kamala Harris in 2024.

Advertisement

A small group of grantees, including the city of St. Paul, Minn., sued in response.

Plaintiff St. Paul, Minnesota

Advertisement

Defendant Wright

Filed in the District of Columbia on Nov. 10, 2025

lost

In January, the administration lost in district court, where a judge said it had violated the Constitution.

Advertisement

But officials were already preparing other cuts to blue states. H.H.S. froze $10 billion in child care and family assistance funds to five states. The states sued …

Plaintiff New York

Advertisement

Defendant Administration for Children and Families

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 8, 2026

injunction

… and a judge issued an injunction.

Advertisement

The D.O.T. suspended funding to the $16 billion Gateway Tunnel project connecting New Jersey and New York. Both states sued …

Plaintiff New Jersey

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 3, 2026

injunction

… and secured another injunction.

Advertisement

Even after those setbacks, in early February the administration told Congress it would cut more than $600 million in public health grants to four blue states. They sued …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Vought

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2026

injunction

… and the next day, a judge issued another injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order.

Advertisement

Still, last week, the administration said it would withhold about $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota (prompting another lawsuit).

These moves, citing a mix of fraud and immigration policies, follow the president’s vow to block all funding to sanctuary jurisdictions — a group, under the D.O.J.’s definition, that could encompass one-third of the U.S. population.

Advertisement

“They can sue us and maybe they’ll win,” the president said in January. “But we’re not giving money to sanctuary cities anymore.”

Arbitrary and capricious

At stake in many cases are weighty constitutional principles: the separation of powers; the right to due process when the government says grantees have done something wrong; the First Amendment protections for organizations to advocate their views without government retaliation.

Advertisement

In the St. Paul suit, a district judge, Amit P. Mehta, ruled in January for the first time in one of these cases that the administration had violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause by singling out states for their partisan lean. During the litigation, the government didn’t deny doing that. Rather, it argued it was allowed to.

St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright

Advertisement

Judge Amit P. Mehta, Obama appointee, Jan. 12, 2026

Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship between that classification and defendants’ stated governmental interest.

lost

But that ruling covered only seven canceled grants worth about $27.5 million out of the nearly $8 billion total terminated. Now a coalition of 13 states is suing with the same constitutional argument in a new case about the same cuts.

Advertisement

The constant that is running through most of these cases, however, is the more mundane-sounding Administrative Procedure Act. That 1946 law says that the federal government must be reasoned and document its thinking according to transparent rules — in short, that it shouldn’t be slapdash and secretive.

These cases are full of examples of it doing just that. When the Department of Homeland Security tried last year to reduce counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states, the agency appeared to arrive at the lower award sums by simply lopping digits off the original values.

Advertisement

Illinois v. Noem

Judge Mary S. McElroy, Trump appointee, Dec. 22, 2025

Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result.

Advertisement

lost

Officials have sent out directives with copy-and-pasted typos, termination letters without agency letterhead and bare explanations with boilerplate rationale.

“You had literally grants for millions of dollars being canceled in a single vague paragraph: ‘This no longer comports with administration priorities, thank you very much,’” said Claudia Polsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who has led a class-action lawsuit among University of California researchers that has restored, for now, at least a thousand grants worth about a billion dollars.

Advertisement

The administration has given grantees new mandates — and prohibitions — so vague that they haven’t known how to comply.

“‘Promote gender ideology’ — what does that mean?” said Maria Corona, the head of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has challenged new conditions on grants. “When you’re talking about ‘violence against women,’ in the language itself we’re already talking about a gender issue.”

Last February, the National Institutes of Health issued a seismic policy change on a Friday night, to take effect the following Monday, slashing payments to universities for research overhead, drawing several lawsuits.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Massachusetts

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Medical Colleges

Advertisement

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

In April, the administration lost these cases, consolidated under one judge (an appeals court upheld the decision this year).

But after the district court ruling, the Department of Energy, followed by the National Science Foundation and then the Department of Defense, each rolled out an identical policy.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Energy

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant National Science Foundation

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2025

Advertisement

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Defense

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025

lost

As these cases accumulated, so did the judges’ irritation.

Advertisement

Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense

Judge Brian E. Murphy, Biden appointee, Oct. 10, 2025

The Court does not write upon a blank slate but instead follows three other courts in this district who have come to similar conclusions with respect to different federal agencies’ attempts to enact virtually identical policies. Notably, defendants ignored these obviously relevant — and at least reasonable — analyses before adopting this policy.

lost

Advertisement

Success for the administration has seldom involved winning on the merits. Rather, the administration has argued in most of these cases that district judges have no business hearing them at all. Cases seeking money, it says, belong instead in the Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court dedicated to financial contract disputes with the government.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett breathed life into that argument, concurring in a preliminary ruling last summer that surprised some legal experts. Her opinion — suggesting policies should be litigated in district court, while payouts resulting from them belong in the Court of Federal Claims — has further complicated these cases. So has the Supreme Court’s ruling last year ending nationwide injunctions.

Winning while losing

Advertisement

By the time grantees have gone to court, they have already lost much. Researchers have halted studies. Nonprofits have laid off staff. The core expectation that the government is a reliable partner has already been undercut.

“The result is a corrosive uncertainty that undermines the basic functioning of government,” said Jacob Leibenluft, a former official in the Biden White House budget office.

Advertisement

That uncertainty sets in the moment money isn’t on time, or when grantees start to think it won’t be in the future. Other changes take root, too: Grantees rethink what’s in their mission statements; professors shift what they teach.

American Association of University Professors v. Trump

Advertisement
Judge Rita F. Lin, Biden appointee, Nov. 14, 2025

Numerous U.C. faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the U.C. system.

injunction

The administration is advancing these changes even when it’s losing particular funding cases in court. And it has successfully blocked money to groups who haven’t sued, further entrenching the president’s expanded power over spending.

Advertisement

Whether this dynamic sticks depends as much on Congress as on the courts. If legislators were more actively guarding programs they had funded themselves, many of these lawsuits likely wouldn’t exist.

New York v. Trump

Advertisement
Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., Obama appointee, March 6, 2025

The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate and sophisticated balance — but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress.

injunction

In rare cases, Republicans in Congress have pushed back against the administration and been able to reverse billions in cuts far more quickly than courts could, including from after-school programs and mental health and addiction treatment.

Advertisement

For most programs targeted by the administration, however, Republicans have publicly said little, and that’s unlikely to change as the president now targets blue states more explicitly. Republican and Democratic appropriators have together quietly tucked some new guardrails into spending bills this year. But it is Democrats, primarily, who have spoken up for the larger principle that lawmakers set the terms of federal spending — not the president.

“We have to guard that with our lives,” said Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House. The alternative, she said, is that funding becomes a tool to silence dissent. “‘Don’t speak out — or I’ll cancel your grant.’”

Absent bipartisan clamor in Congress, cases like King County v. Turner grind on. The case was brought last May by eight local governments challenging new conditions on housing and transportation grants. Then they added H.H.S. as a defendant. And 23 more local governments and transit and housing agencies joined as plaintiffs. Then another 29 came on board. Then 15 more. Each one has had to explain the harms it has faced. The judge has had to review each claim, alongside the details of dozens of grant programs, while crafting what are now four successive injunctions. All that is just one lawsuit.

Advertisement

“Should we have to do that 200 times, 300 times?” said Erin Overbey, the general counsel with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. “What’s the number where we reach critical mass?”

Continue Reading

Trending