Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court OKs Trump's cuts to teacher training grants in California

Published

on

Supreme Court OKs Trump's cuts to teacher training grants in California

The Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration on Friday and lifted a judge’s order that had blocked the canceling of $148 million in grants for recruiting and training new teachers in California and millions more nationwide.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices granted the administration’s appeal and freezes the funding for now.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he would have denied the appeal, and the court’s three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — filed a written dissent.

“In my view, nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention,” Kagan wrote.

The majority did not explain its decision. In a brief, unsigned order, it said the plaintiffs did not “refute the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.”

Advertisement

Trump administration lawyers had urged the court to rein in judges who were acting as “self-appointed managers” of the federal government.

In early February, Trump’s appointees at the Education Department reviewed pending grants aiming to end funding for “discriminatory practices, including in the form of DEI,” or diversity, equity and inclusion.

They decided to terminate 104 of 109 teacher training grants valued at about $600 million nationwide. They did so through form letters that said the grants “no longer effectuate … agency priorities.”

Led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, eight Democratic-leaning states filed suit in Boston and argued that Congress had approved the grants and that their sudden canceling was not “authorized by law.” The suit targeted about $250 million in canceled grants, and of those, about $148 million went to California.

Joining California in the suit were Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin and Colorado. No Republican-led states have filed suit.

Advertisement

Bonta’s suit relied on the Administrative Procedure Act, which forbids agencies from abruptly changing their regulatory policies without a clear and reasonable explanation.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, a Biden appointee, agreed that the Education Department’s decision to abruptly terminate the grants was “arbitrary and capricious” and illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act. He said “there was no individualized analysis of any of the programs” that were terminated.

On March 10, he issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo.

When a federal appeals court refused to lift that order, Trump administration lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court.

“This court should put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive branch fund and grant disbursement decisions,” wrote acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris in her appeal in U.S. Department of Education vs. State of California.

Advertisement

A statement from Bonta’s office said the Supreme Court order “does not conclusively resolve any of the issues in this case, and the preliminary injunction motion is still pending.”

“The Trump Administration is pursuing an anti-education agenda that would yank teachers out of schools and prevent new teachers-in-training who are close to being ready to serve our students from filling empty classrooms,” Bonta said in a statement. “While we would have preferred to maintain the [temporary restraining order], we respect the court process, and we look forward to continuing to make our case in the lower court.”

Bonta’s suit said the California State University and the University of California lost eight grants that were valued at about $56 million. The aim of the federal grants was to recruit and train teachers to work in “hard to staff” schools in rural or urban areas.

Among the canceled programs was a $7.5-million grant to Cal State L.A. to train and certify 276 teachers over five years to work in high-need or high-poverty schools in the Los Angeles Unified and Pasadena Unified school districts.

Other cancellations included an $8-million program at UCLA to train at least 314 middle school principals as well as math, English, science and social science teachers to serve in several Los Angeles county school districts.

Advertisement

In a statement, California Teachers Assn. President David Goldberg criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“At a time when we are facing ongoing staffing shortages in our public schools, we should be devoting more resources to the recruitment and retention of educators, not holding critical resources hostage to push political agendas,” Goldberg said.

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this story.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending