SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal funding
Planned Parenthood Sues Trump Admin Over Title X Funding for 'Vital Care'
The organization has "provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X."
Jul 29, 2026
Planned Parenthood Federation of America on Wednesday sued over the Trump administration's attempt to abuse a federal program "for an overtly political and ideological agenda that is at odds with Title X's statutory purpose of funding comprehensive family planning care for those who cannot afford it."
"Title X of the Public Health Service Act is the only domestic federal program devoted solely to family planning for uninsured, underinsured, and low-income people," notes the complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC by lawyers at PPFA, Democracy Forward, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
After the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Population Affairs in April announced changes to how it chooses Title X grantees for the 2027-32 cycle, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania sued last month, backed by the ACLU.
The office then updated the policy earlier this month. However, as Wednesday's complaint explains, the updated version still says that "in evaluating and awarding Title X grants," the office "will consider the extent to which applicants 'advance' and 'align with' a series of political priorities."
PPFA's attorneys argued that the administration's approach is unlawful and puts the group's members "at a competitive disadvantage," which could ultimately impact people seeking care, from contraception to testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman—whose organization has repeatedly sued over Trump policies—said in a statement that "people should be able to receive the healthcare that is right for them, their lives, and their values, and that requires support for providing critically needed family planning services for people who cannot afford it."
Accusing the administration of "once again putting politics over people," she said that "the unlawful, ideologically driven changes to Title X threaten devastating consequences for lower income Americans nationwide who rely on the program for essential healthcare, including birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing."
"Title X was created so a person's income would never determine whether they could access the medically appropriate family planning care that is right for them," Perryman emphasized. "We will aggressively pursue legal action on behalf of our clients until the administration stops undermining that promise and follows the law."
Highlighting the potential impact of the administration's policy for people throughout the United States, PPFA pointed out that from October 2024 through September 2025, its health centers provided over 1.3 million Title X visits across 33 states.
"Planned Parenthood health centers have provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X," said PPFA president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson. "We are suing the Trump administration because, yet again, it is trying to make it harder for people to get the vital care they need at Planned Parenthood."
The new lawsuit comes after Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics regained access to Medicaid funding earlier this month, following the expiration of a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed last July.
The passage of that provision was a victory for forced pregnancy advocates, who have long targeted Planned Parenthood for providing abortion care. An analysis from the organization found that the "defunding" effort led to the closure of nearly 30 health centers, all of which were located in "contraceptive deserts" and two-thirds of which were in areas defined as rural, medically underserved, or experiencing health professional shortages.
The group also called the Medicaid provision a "backdoor abortion ban," noting that 64% of Planned Parenthood health center closures were in states where such care is legal, and the shuttered facilities had previously served over 10,000 abortion patients annually.
"By deliberately targeting Planned Parenthood, President Trump and his allies in Congress worsened a public health crisis, making it harder for people to get the essential and lifesaving care they needed at their trusted provider," McGill Johnson said in early July.
"Still, anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to make 'defund' permanent because Planned Parenthood health centers provide abortion care where it's legal," she stressed. "They are willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people across the country if it gets them closer to their goal of banning abortion everywhere and shutting down Planned Parenthood."
"We're in a fight for survival—not just for Planned Parenthood health centers, but for everyone to get high-quality, affordable healthcare from their trusted provider," she added. "And know this: Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone can get the care they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Winning The War on Nonprofits
The administration has created an unprecedented crisis for nonprofits by cutting funds that have been duly congressionally allocated and by targeting organizations with which it disagrees.
Jun 24, 2026
Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has waged war on nonprofits. Actions have included federal funding cuts to the tune of billions of dollars, targeting of specific organizations with investigations or indictments, and threats to tax-exempt status. While some efforts have been turned back by the courts, the administration has been unrelenting and, sadly, every American community will suffer as a result of this sustained attack.
Presidential announcements warn of “anti-American NGOs” and allege without any credible evidence that networks of nonprofits are acting as “domestic terrorist organizations.” Recently, the administration issued proposed regulations intended to impose sweeping new restrictions on nonprofits that receive federal funding—including that such organizations not advance diversity, equity, and inclusion or assist in voter registration.
The consequences of these attacks are dire. New data from a survey our organization conducted earlier this year show that nonprofits, which employ 1 in 10 Americans, are reeling. We see a dramatic increase in burnout among nonprofit leaders, whose stresses often include new worries about the safety of their staff and those they serve; financial distress as more organizations book deficits; increased difficulty raising funds from foundations (which are facing unprecedented demand as nonprofits look to replace lost government funding); and cutbacks to programs and staff in order to keep their doors open. On top of all this, demand for nonprofits’ services has increased as communities struggle amid higher inflation and cuts to federal programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Fully two-thirds of nonprofit leaders say they have concerns about their organizations’ financial sustainability. We’re seeing a growing number pause operations, scale back services, or close altogether. This is happening to organizations that provide vital services to people of every geography, party affiliation, and political ideology—services such as food, housing, and substance abuse prevention; assistance for survivors of sexual assault; teen violence prevention; and general community support.
The time is now to make your support known publicly by giving whatever you can to the nonprofits in your community that you care about.
This attack on the nonprofit sector is unprecedented. In his 1988 Republican National Convention speech accepting the nomination for president, George H.W. Bush famously talked about local nonprofits as “a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.” In a similar vein, nonprofit leader and former Democratic cabinet official John Gardner once quipped, “If you can’t find a nonprofit institution that you can honestly disrespect, then something has gone wrong with our pluralism.”
This vision of organizations pursuing varied and diverse objectives has its roots in the origins of this country and in the First Amendment, and was famously observed by French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 who remarked, with admiration, that Americans are “forever forming associations.” He saw these organizations as a ballast to a strong democracy—and a deterrent to despotism.
Whether they know it or not, every American’s life is touched for the better by nonprofits: through an after-school program, visits to a museum or a trail created by a local land conservation nonprofit, or help provided by frontline human services organizations like food pantries or domestic violence shelters. Nonprofits provide job training to veterans and other populations needing support. They do crucial research on diseases. They staff crisis hotlines, clean up parks and streets, and rush in to help after a natural disaster. “Nonprofits have been taken for granted in American society as institutions that will always be there to catch us when we fall,” notes Akilah Watkins of Independent Sector.
Most nonprofits are small and community based, and they are the infrastructure of American communities. They are, by law, nonpartisan; many are religiously affiliated. In practice, local nonprofits are one of the few places that volunteers and staff come together in pursuit of the common good without regard to political party or ideology.
This crisis is unlike anything either of us have seen in our 25-year careers working in philanthropy. Nonprofits experienced a similar increase in demand in 2020 during the pandemic, but, at that time, the federal government increased funding to nonprofits to help them navigate the crisis. This time, it is the government that has created the crisis, by cutting funds that have been duly congressionally allocated and by targeting organizations with which it disagrees.
The federal government has historically relied on nonprofits to deliver a range of essential services to people in communities across the country, regardless of their political affiliation. While the government has targeted specific nonprofits before—during the civil rights movement, for example—this administration is going after the entire sector as a whole.
It is this attack on nonprofits that is, in fact, anti-American.
Every American should be concerned about the health of the American nonprofit sector. The time is now to make your support known publicly by giving whatever you can to the nonprofits in your community that you care about—whether that’s money, time, or both.
As Diane Yentel of the National Council of Nonprofits says: “Nonprofits are the backbone of this country, providing critical support to improve communities and save lives. Defending and supporting them should not divide us along political lines—it should unite all Americans.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Three More Top Universities Reject Trump's Extortion Compact for Funding
Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania—the president's alma mater—all rejected the proposal.
Oct 16, 2025
Three more leading US universities have joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in rejecting President Donald Trump's compact that critics have condemned as an "extortion agreement" and "loyalty oath" for federal funding.
Brown University's Wednesday decision and Thursday announcements from the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania came ahead of the Trump administration's October 20 deadline for the nine initially invited schools to respond to the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education."
Although the University of Texas said it was "honored" to receive the offer, it has not officially signed on to the compact to receive priority access to federal funding and other "benefits." Neither has any of the other institutions: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
Bloomberg reported Monday that "a few days after MIT rebuffed the proposal, the administration extended the offering to all higher education institutions," citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.
Brown's president, Christina Paxson, released her full letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials on Wednesday. She pointed out that "on July 30, Brown signed a voluntary resolution agreement with the government that advances a number of the high-level principles articulated in the compact, while maintaining core tenets of academic freedom and self-governance that have sustained the excellence of American higher education across generations."
"While a number of provisions in the compact reflect similar principles as the July agreement—as well as our own commitments to affordability and the free exchange of ideas—I am concerned that the compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown's governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission," Paxson wrote. "While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the compact."
Penn, also part of the Ivy League, rejected the compact on Thursday. In a statement, its president, Dr. J. Larry Jameson, said that "for 285 years, Penn has been anchored and guided by continuous self-improvement, using education as a ladder for opportunity, and advancing discoveries that serve our community, our nation, and the world."
"I have sought input from faculty, alumni, trustees, students, staff, and others who care deeply about Penn," with the goal of ensuring that "our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community," Jameson detailed. "Penn respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact," and provided the US Department of Education with "focused feedback highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns."
"At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability," he added. "The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress."
As The Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, noted:
At a Wednesday meeting, Penn's Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging the University to reject the agreement.
"The 'compact’ erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built," the October 15 resolution read. "The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate urges President Jameson and the Board of Trustees to reject it and any other proposal that similarly threatens our mission and values."
Penn is the alma mater of Trump and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity financier who helped craft the compact.
The Trump White House told the student newspaper that "any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers' support."
Despite the risk of funding loss, the University of Southern California also rejected the proposal on Thursday. In a statement to the campus paper, the Daily Trojan, interim president Beong-Soo Kim said that "although USC has declined to join the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, insights, and Trojan values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education."
Critics of the compact have called on educational leaders to oppose it. In a joint statement earlier this month, American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten urged "all college and university governing boards, campus administrations, academic disciplinary organizations, and higher education trade groups to reject such collusion with the Trump administration and to stand firmly on the side of free expression and higher education as the anchor of opportunity for all."
Acquiescing, they argued, "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution's legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Universities Must Not Fold to Trump's Authoritarian Compact
This compact goes against every democratic principle our country and our schools should uphold, and we reject the Trump administration’s attempt to cajole universities into compliance through explicit bribery.
Oct 06, 2025
We are students at the nine universities most recently targeted by President Donald Trump. We've spent years demanding that our universities improve conditions for students, lower tuition, and create spaces for the free exchange of ideas. No one told us the way to influence our universities was simply to bribe them with millions of dollars of federal funding.
On October 1, the Trump administration sent our schools a 10-point memo titled "Compact for excellence in higher education." If adopted, the compact would limit international student enrollment, force universities to share student information with the federal government, enforce the adoption of a specific definition of gender and threaten affinity spaces, and take action against actors that “punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” In return, our universities are promised increased access to federal funding opportunities. If they don't comply? Well, any school can “elect to forgo federal benefits.”
This compact goes against every democratic principle our country and our schools should uphold, and we reject the Trump administration’s attempt to cajole universities into compliance through explicit bribery. It should go without saying that extorting universities to comply with ideological demands and quell freedom of speech is antidemocratic, but here we are.
In a public statement, White House Official May Mailman claimed that our nine universities—Brown, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, Dartmouth, MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt, the University of Virginia, and the University of Southern California—were chosen because they are "good actors." In other words, the Trump administration expects our universities to fold. And they expect to use our compliance as a green light to force universities across the country into similar agreements.
If any one of our universities agrees to this compact, it risks creating a chain reaction for the higher education system at-large to side with tyrants over students.
Here's the thing—we cannot deny that Trump's compact pointed out some very real issues in our higher education system. It is true that "too many young adults have become saddled with life-altering debt." It is true that "truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education." For decades, young people have borne the brunt of our country's refusal to invest in education. As federal funding has fallen, administrator salaries have ballooned while faculty, staff, and graduate worker wages have stagnated and tuition prices have skyrocketed. Today, many of our schools are run more like hedge funds than like centers of learning. That's why we have continuously demanded that our government and our universities make higher education more accessible, and allow us to freely share our viewpoints on campus.
Trump's memo, however, does not actually sincerely seek to confront these issues. It is a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine fundamental principles of university independence and attack vulnerable students, and it is a clear instance of authoritarian overreach. Trump claims to value "truth-seeking," yet limits what "truth" can be sought. The compact places surveillance on what ideas can and cannot be present in the campus setting, requiring screening of international students for "anti-American" values. Under the guise of promoting campus discourse, it gives institutions the tools to gut departments that the Trump administration could frame as "belittling" conservative ideas. What counts as an "anti-American" value or "belittling" conservative ideas is malleable to the Trump administration's vantage point. The compact also effectively bans peaceful campus protest, a crucial part of civil discourse on our campuses.
To define a "free marketplace of ideas" by its adherence to a specific set of ideas and exclusion of a specific set of individuals is not creating a free marketplace at all: It's breeding authoritarianism.
This compact also asks our universities to commit to repression of LGBTQ+ students, including "biological" definitions of sex and gender, that would strip our queer students of protections and resources crucial to their right to a free and safe education. For LGBTQ+ students, this compact is not just a "political" attack; it is an immediate threat to our education and survival.
And this comes after a speech-chilling effect has already taken over our campuses. Students who dared to speak out in support of Palestine, especially, have faced extreme repression on campus, including police sweeps, expulsions, and attempted deportations. Over the summer, we watched as Brown University and the University of Pennsylvania signed agreements that sold students' personal information to the Department of Justice, excluded trans students from university life, and stripped them of their healthcare. We watched as the University of Virginia acquiesced to the Department of Justice's demands to dissolve diversity, equity, and inclusion offices against the wishes of the university community and forced President Jim Ryan to step down. We've watched our peers, Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Öztürk, taken for daring to speak against Israel's genocide, and we continue to watch as Immigraton and Customs Enforcement takes our community members on and near our campuses.
The founding principles of our universities—quality education free from censorship, workforce development, and shared governance of university structures—have been under attack for decades. The solution is not to take a bribe from a wannabe-dictator who wants to trojan-horse exclusionary policies under the guise of protecting American students. The solution is to listen to the students, faculty, and staff who actually make our schools run.
This memo was sent out during a government shutdown. While key government programs are stopped and unknown numbers of federal employees are furloughed, the Trump administration is seeking ways to expand its power. If any one of our universities agrees to this compact, it risks creating a chain reaction for the higher education system at-large to side with tyrants over students. We demand that our universities do not fold, and do not sign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Cancels Grants for Pedestrian Safety and Bike Lanes, Calling Them ‘Hostile’ to Cars
More than 7,148 pedestrians were killed by personal motor vehicles in 2024, just shy of a 40-year high. Meanwhile, travelers are much more likely to die in cars than on public transit.
Sep 24, 2025
The US Department of Transportation began earlier this month to rescind federal funding for local projects across the country to improve street safety and add pedestrian trails and bike lanes, because they were deemed "hostile" to cars.
A report Monday in Bloomberg cited several examples of multimillion-dollar grants being axed beginning on September 9, all with the same rationale:
A San Diego County road improvement project including bike lanes “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles,” a US Department of Transportation official wrote, rescinding a $1.2 million grant it awarded nearly a year ago.
In Fairfield, Alabama, converting street lanes to trail space on Vinesville Road was also deemed “hostile” to cars, and “counter to DOT’s priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.”
Officials in Boston got a similar explanation, as the Trump administration pulled back a previously awarded grant to improve walking, biking, and transit in the city’s Mattapan Square neighborhood in a way that would change the “current auto-centric configuration.” Another grant to improve safety at intersections in the city was terminated, the DOT said, because it could “impede vehicle capacity and speed.”
These are just a few of the projects cancelled in recent weeks by the Trump administration. According to StreetsBlog, others included a 44-mile walking trail along the Naugatuck River in Connecticut, which the administration reportedly stripped funding from because it did not "promote vehicular travel," and new miles of rail trail in Albuquerque for which DOT said funding would be reallocated to "'car-focused' projects instead."
The cuts are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to slash discretionary federal grants under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act signed by former President Joe Biden in 2021.
These include the RAISE infrastructure grant and Safe Streets and Roads for All programs, for which Congress has allocated a combined $2.5 billion annually to expand public transportation and address the US's worsening epidemic of pedestrian deaths.
Data published in July by the group Transportation for America revealed that the Trump administration has been implementing funds for safety grants at about 10% of the speed of the Biden administration.
According to a report published in July by the Governors Highway Safety Association, US drivers struck and killed 7,148 pedestrians in 2024, "enough to fill more than 30 Boeing 737 jets at maximum capacity." Though fatalities have decreased slightly from a 40-year peak in 2022, the number of fatalities last year was 20% higher than in 2016.
Research has overwhelmingly shown that adding bicycle and pedestrian lanes to streets can reduce these fatalities. Even the DOT's own Federal Highway Administration website recommends introducing "Road Diets" that reduce four-lane intersections to three lanes, making room for pedestrian refuge islands and bike lanes to serve as a "buffer" between automobile traffic and sidewalks.
According to the website, "studies indicate a 19 to 47% reduction in overall crashes when a Road Diet is installed on a previously four-lane undivided facility as well as a decrease in crashes involving drivers under 35 years of age and over 65 years of age."
Car crash fatalities are also up in general, according to preliminary data from the Department of Transportation: 39,345 were killed in motor accidents in 2024 compared with 32,744 a decade prior, a 20% increase.
Despite this, the Trump administration has made its preference for maximizing car travel abundantly clear. Trump has attempted to block California from constructing a massive new high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco and has tried to stymie New York's wildly successful congestion pricing program.
Citing isolated cases of subway and train crime, he and other members of the Republican Party often paint public transit as excessively dangerous.
In one interview on Fox News in May, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy ranted that, "if you're liberal, they want you to take public transportation." While stating that he was "OK with public transportation," he said, "the problem is that it's dirty. You have criminals. It's homeless shelters. It's insane asylums. It's a work ground for the criminal element of the city to prey upon the good people."
However, data show that between 2007 and 2023, deaths from automobile accidents were 100 times more likely than deaths on buses and 20 times more likely than on passenger trains.
Data: Highway passenger deaths from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data. Railroad passenger deaths from the Federal Railroad Administration. Airline passenger deaths from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Passenger miles estimates from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. All other figures are estimates from the National Safety Council. (Graphic: National Safety Council)
That hostility extends toward efforts to expand bicycle usage. In March, Duffy announced that the department would "review" all grants related to green infrastructure, including bike lanes, which was characterized as an effort to combat the previous president's attempts to reduce US transportation's carbon footprint.
Grant criteria sent to communities for the Safe Streets and Roads for All program explicitly warned communities that if "the applicant included infrastructure [resulting in] reducing lane capacity for vehicles," the application would be "viewed less favorably by the department."
When asked about this decision at a panel the next month, StreetsBlog reported that Duffy "grimaced and grumbled the word 'bikes' like it was an expletive, before repeating a string of corrosive myths about bike lanes that are all too common among people who only get around by car," including that they supposedly increase traffic congestion.
Many of the communities that have lost funding for their projects say they are still going to move ahead with them in some capacity. However, they argue that the government providing funds to improve road safety should be common sense.
Rick Dunne, the executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, stated that the effort to build a trail along the river will continue, even without the funding. But he expressed bewilderment at the administration's statement that investing in highway travel would better serve residents' "quality of life."
“Look, if your definition of improving quality of life is promoting vehicular travel, that's just, on its face, bad. Increase vehicle travel, increase pollution, increase safety risks,” Dunne told the CT Post. “Taking this money from this project, putting it into highway travel, is in no way going to increase economic efficiency. I don't see how you argue that it improves the quality of life of Americans, or the residents of this valley.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Votes Down Amendments to Restore Funding for Meals on Wheels, AIDS Prevention
"They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks," said Rep. Mark Pocan, "but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."
Sep 10, 2025
House Republicans have struck down a pair of amendments to fully fund the Meals on Wheels program and AIDS prevention as part of this week's markup process for the fiscal year 2026 US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget.
The amendments were proposed by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) to the bill recently released by the House Appropriations Committee, which proposes to cut HHS funding by 6%.
Part of that funding comes from Meals on Wheels, the charity that provides an estimated 250 million meals each year to senior citizens unable to cook for themselves. The charity says that 9 in 10 of its providers receive some amount of federal funding and that for 60% of them, it represents more than half their operating budget.
According to Pocan, who spoke Monday on the House floor, the Republican bill underfunds the food assistance program by $600 million, which he says is likely to cost 1.9 million people their access to food.
" Republicans in the appropriations process are leaving seniors to starve," Pocan said.
Combined with the $187 billion already cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which Republicans passed in July, Pocan said it amounts to "the largest cut to food assistance in our nation's history."
Pocan juxtaposed these cuts with the "extravagant dinner" hosted this weekend at Trump's new, private White House "Rose Garden Club," which White House social media shows featured "steak and a fudge-filled seven-layer cake."
"I guess the theme of the White House event was 'let them eat cake,'" Pocan joked.
When he proposed the amendment as part of the markup process on Tuesday, Pocan spoke about his elderly mother's experience relying on the Meals on Wheels program when she dealt with mobility issues.
"I would hope that this is something where we could get together and say, 'Yeah, this should be a priority... We respect our seniors and we're going to show that through Meals on Wheels," Pocan said before his House colleagues.
Every single Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted against the amendment.
Republicans also unanimously struck down Pocan's amendment to restore nearly $2 billion for AIDS prevention cut from the House GOP bill, which makes up 25% of the total budget cuts to HHS.
In June, the Foundation for AIDS Research projected that Trump's proposal to cut $1.3 billion worth of HIV prevention funds "could cause an additional 144,000 new HIV diagnoses, 15,000 deaths, and 128,000 more people living with HIV in the US by 2030."
The Appropriations Committee budget goes even further than Trump's proposed budget released earlier this year, cutting over $1.7 billion worth of AIDS prevention funding.
It calls for the total elimination of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding to combat HIV and cuts $220 million allocated to Trump's own Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. It also eliminates $525 million from the Ryan White Program, which provides grants to over 400 HIV/AIDS clinics providing care and treatment.
"This is not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States," said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute. "Eliminating all HIV prevention means the end of state and local testing and surveillance programs, educational programs, and linkage to lifesaving care and treatment, along with PrEP. It will translate into an increased number of new HIV infections, which will be costlier to treat in the long run."
After Republicans voted down his amendment to reverse these "devastating" cuts, Pocan wrote on X, "They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks, but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Lawless Attack on Harvard Is Like None Before
Trump is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
Jun 26, 2025
This month, our firm filed a friend of the court brief in the Harvard case on behalf of 18 former government officials who were responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law the Trump administration relies on to justify termination of billions of dollars in federal funding to the university. The signatories to the brief are senior career and non-career appointees who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations from the 1970’s to January of this year.
One of those former officials is David Tatel, a highly respected retired judge who served as director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) under President Jimmy Carter, and later as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation’s second highest court. Judge Tatel discusses his experience overseeing Title VI enforcement in the brief. It illustrates just how lawless, destructive, and dangerous President Donald Trump’s vendetta against Harvard has become—and how different it is from any Title VI enforcement action that has gone before.
Title VI requires institutions that receive federal funds to follow civil rights laws. Institutions that discriminate can lose their funds, but it is an option of last resort.
Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
Before funds are cut, the government must conduct a proper investigation to determine if discrimination exists and the law has been violated; it must make genuine, good faith efforts to work with the fund recipient to secure voluntary compliance; and where settlement is unsuccessful, the recipient must have a chance to present its case in court.
These constraints are written into Title VI and the regulations federal agencies must follow. They protect the interests of universities like Harvard, but more important, they maintain the delivery of services to the ultimate beneficiaries of federal programs as much as possible. In the case of Harvard, those beneficiaries include not just its students and faculty, but millions around the world who benefit from advances in science, medicine, and technology that flow from Harvard’s research programs and facilities.
Judge Tatel refers to fund termination as the nuclear option: “it is like dropping an atom bomb—everyone gets hurt.”
In his time enforcing Title VI, Tatel faced egregious violations of civil rights laws by school districts and universities, involving refusals to comply with court desegregation orders, and the firing of Black teachers.
Tatel recalls traveling to remote school districts in Texas and Arkansas, meeting with school superintendents to learn about their issues and work out agreements. He did the same with the city of Chicago, taking months to investigate concerns and negotiate over how to achieve voluntary compliance with a desegregation plan that would serve the interests of students, the city, and the federal government.
Universities were no different. Tatel carefully negotiated agreements with the public university systems of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Virginia to remove the vestiges of racially dual education systems in those five states.
The University of North Carolina took longer, but Tatel and his boss, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, stayed with it for years, meeting repeatedly with the UNC president and North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt to craft an acceptable plan. Ultimately an agreement was worked out by the Reagan administration.
The approach to Title VI enforcement Judge Tatel followed and that is mandated by the statute has worked time and again. As a result, the termination of funds has been rare. Thousands of Title VI complaints have been filed during the decades Tatel and the signatories to the brief oversaw enforcement. They are aware of none that has resulted in fund termination since 1982.
Contrast this with way Trump has pursued alleged Title VI concerns with Harvard. After receiving notification of the government’s allegations of antisemitism on campus in February, Harvard explained the reforms it had undertaken and said it was open to exploring further reforms. Trump responded with an unprecedented and unconstitutional demand, requiring Harvard to submit to government control of the viewpoints expressed on campus. When Harvard refused to cede control of its teaching, community and governance, Trump moved within hours to terminate all federal funding.
The consequences to Harvard are dire. The cuts affect billions of dollars in funding that support medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and national security. Harvard filed suit in court, challenging the fund termination as unconstitutional retaliation for exercising its First Amendment rights and its right to defend itself.
Trump responded by doubling down, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard’s certification to host the 7,000 international students currently enrolled at Harvard. Harvard filed a second suit to protect these students, and Trump retaliated yet again, issuing a new Executive Order directing the State Department to take actions designed to prevent new international students coming to Harvard from entering the country.
Nothing could be further from the process mandated by Title VI for resolving allegations of discrimination, or the process successfully followed by past administrations and those charged with enforcing Title VI. Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
What explains this blatantly lawless conduct? In my view the answer is clear.
Trump is not interested in resolving allegations of discrimination, any more than he is interested in determining if the allegations have merit in the first instance. His motives are retaliatory and punitive. They are designed to assert control over America’s oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious university—a powerful institution he has concluded is not aligned with his political ideology.
He is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
We are now well down a path toward authoritarianism. The importance of the battle between Trump and Harvard cannot be overstated. It will determine more than the future of academic freedom in America. It may well determine the future of our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Vote to Take Back Funds for NPR/PBS Imperils 'Future of Public Broadcasting'
"President Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions," said one free press advocate.
Jun 13, 2025
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly approved a rescission package that would take back funding for PBS and NPR, as well international aid programs—a move that supporters of public media quickly decried.
Earlier in June, the Trump White House formally asked Congress to rescind over $9 billion in approved spending, the vast majority of which would go toward foreign aid programs. However, it also includes a take back of more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States. CPB distributes nearly all of those funds to local television and radio stations, according to NPR. The funding clawback impacts funding for the next two fiscal years.
"Public media delivers unmatched value to the American taxpayer," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, in a statement on Thursday. "It serves every family in every part of America."
The package passed with a 214 to 212 vote. All House Republicans except for four voted in favor of the measure, and all Democrats voted against it. It now heads to the Senate.
"From life-saving emergency alerts to local reporting and storytelling, and educational resources that support families, job seekers and teachers—these services exist because public media is committed to serving everyone, regardless of income or zip code. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total," Protect My Public Media, a grassroots advocacy campaign focused on preserving federal funding for public media stations, wrote in response to the House vote. The group is driving emails to the Senate to urge lawmakers to vote against the package.
Co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press Action, Craig Aaron, said Thursday that there is broad support for federal funding for public broadcasting.
"President [Donald] Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions. As they prepare to vote on his request, senators need to know that supporting public media is healthy for their communities and our democracy. Publicly funded news outlets act as counterbalances to a commercial media system that too often puts profits before the public interest," Aaron said.
Big picture, Free Press Action says that the House vote puts the "future of public broadcasting in doubt."
In addition to slashing federal funding for NPR and PBS, the package would cut money for peacekeeping efforts, dollars for health programs that fund activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases, and funding for climate projects.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted some of these other cuts, as well as those to public media, and added that "Republican senators should reflect on how the rescission package threatens to blow up the annual appropriations process."
"The minority party has no reason to agree to bipartisan appropriations legislation if the president and one party alone can undo the deal," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Concerning, Shortsighted, and Detrimental': Trump Attacks National Endowment for the Arts
"Creative expression is the lifeblood that vivifies a free and democratic culture," said the head of one nonprofit publisher. "Every story a writer tells is one Trump cannot control."
May 06, 2025
Arts institutions around the country expressed sadness and outrage after the Trump administration notified theaters, literary arts organizations, and other groups on Friday that their National Endowment for the Arts grants were being withdrawn or canceled. The message came the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump proposed eliminating funding for the independent federal agency.
"Any attempt to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)—by eliminating funding, reducing staff, or canceling grants—is deeply concerning, shortsighted, and detrimental to our nation," said CEO of Americans for the Arts, Erin Harkey, on Saturday. "NEA grants have touched every American, supporting projects in every congressional district and helping the arts reach parts of the country, including often overlooked rural communities."
According to NPR, which itself receives two NEA grants valued at $65,000, hundreds of groups across the country on Friday received a message from the NEA that grants offered for the 2025 fiscal year were being terminated or withdrawn. The email read, in part, "the NEA is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the president."
"Consequently," the email continued "we are terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities." According to NPR, the email states the president's priorities include projects that "celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence," "make America healthy again," and "foster skilled trade jobs," among others.
Impacted organizations have submitted information about their terminated or withdrawn NEA grants to a public tracker, which as of Tuesday afternoon lists over 200 groups. According to the spreadsheet, total funding revoked as of 3:00 pm Eastern Time tallied $5.9 million.
According to reporting from The Washington Post, it was not immediately clear whether the NEA is able to rescind grants it has already awarded, something that grantees who spoke to the outlet raised. The NEA was established by Congress in 1965 is the largest funder of arts and arts education countrywide, also according to the Post.
The move to revoke funding "not only threatens the stability of countless community-based programs but also places a heavy burden on smaller arts organizations that rely on consistent support to serve, educate, and inspire," wrote Lina Lindberg, a grant strategist, on LinkedIn on Tuesday.
The nonprofit publisher Electric Literature announced on Monday that its 2025 NEA grant was terminated, but struck a defiant tone in the public statement.
"Creative expression is the lifeblood that vivifies a free and democratic culture. Trump is obsessed with a heritage and legacy of his own imagination. For him, literature is forward facing and therefore dangerous. Every story, even about the past, is a new story. Every story a writer tells is one Trump cannot control," wrote the organization's executive director, Halimah Marcus. "Electric Literature will continue to publish culturally enriching stories about the past, present, and future with honesty and heart."
Portland Playhouse posted on Instagram that the administration had withdrawn the nonprofit theater's $25,000 NEA grant on the eve of the opening night of a production the funding was meant to support.
"To receive this news on the eve of opening night is deeply disappointing. While we have no plans currently to cancel our production, moving forward without the support of this critical funding presents a significant challenge for our company," the playhouse wrote. "We know we're not alone. Arts organizations across the country are grappling with reduced support at a time when the need for community, connection, and cultural expression is vital."
According to n+1's development director Dani Oliver, the magazine on Friday learned about the termination of its $12,500 2025 NEA grant "meant to help us pay our authors, our editors, and to have the magazine distributed to our readers."
"We're trying to stay optimistic, but with the administration's other announcement this week that the NEA might be shut down in its entirety, it's hard to do so," Oliver added.
Earlier Friday, Trump proposed completely getting rid of the NEA in his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2026.
Next to where the NEA appears in the budget, the document explains that "the budget includes the elimination of, or the elimination of federal funding for, the following small agencies."
In addition to NEA, Trump's budget also proposed eliminating funding for the National Endowment for Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The New York Times reported Friday that "the proposal to eliminate the endowments drew a quick and furious reaction from Democrats."
The Times also reported that on Monday a group of senior officials at the NEA announced their resignations.
One observer, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, connected the grant terminations to the effort by Republicans in Congress to pass a round of tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy. "The next thing Trump is trying to tear down: the arts," he wrote on X Tuesday. "All to fund tax cuts for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy