The Federal Crime victims, announced in the summer that millions of dollars approved for surviving violence in the family and other victims of crimes will be held from the states that do not correspond to the immigration policy of the Trump administration.
California, 19 other states and Columbia districts sued, claiming that such preliminary conditions are illegal and undermine public security.
Then the administration took another beat, announcing that public organizations that receive such funding from the States – and use it to help people avoid violence, access to shelter and submit applications for holding orders against their abuses – as a rule, cannot use it to provide services to immigrants without documents.
California and other states again sued, claiming that the requirements that, according to the administration, should apply states are also illegal and dangerous. The lawyers agreed, saying that the screening of women -immigrants from such programs would be cruel.
Repeated trials reflect an increasingly familiar scheme in Growing mountain of trial Between the administration of Trump, California and other blue states.
Since President Trump took office in January, his administration tried to force the states to present many political fronts Reducing federal financingpart of the desire to go around the congress and is significantly expanding Executive powerThe field repeatedly, when these reductions were disputed in court, the administration changed its approach to go after the same or similar financing from a slightly different angle – which caused more trials.
Repeated trials added the complexity and volume to Already a monumental legal war Between the administration and the states, such as California, which began almost immediately after Trump took office and continues, as the administration again threatens serious reductions Among the closure of the government.
The White House previously rejected the lawsuit in California as unfounded and defended Trump's right to accept its political agenda, including by holding the funds. Answering the question about his shift strategies in some of these cases, Abigail Jackson, a press secretary of the White House, said that the administration “won numerous cases regarding reducing expenses in the Supreme Court and will continue to reduce wasteful expenses for the government.”
Other administration officials also defended their legal tactics. For example, during the struggle for frozen federal financing in the beginning of this year, the vice -president of JD Vance wrote on social networks that judges “do not allow to control the legitimate power of the executive branch” – causing fears about Constitutional crisisField
California Atti. General Rob Bont said that this scheme is the result of the fact that Trump overcomes his authority to control federal financing and used it as a weapon against his political opponents, as well as his dangerous ignoring the rule of law and the authorities of both Congress and federal judges. His office sued the administration more than 40 times since January, many times in financing.
“It’s not that you must see that the federal government, the President of the United States, is so contemptuous of the supremacy of the law and is ready to break it and break it again, tell the court that they violate the law, and then the court must say again,” Bonta said.
And yet, such examples abound in, he said. For example, repeated attempts by the Ministry of Justice to deprive the financing of the victim of crime in California repeated repeated attempts by the Ministry of Internal Security, recently abandoning the state assistance of natural disasters and financing anti -terrorism.
National security officers first informed the states that such financing will be due to their obligations on immigration efforts. California and other states sued, and federal judge rejected such preliminary conditions as unconstitutionalField
Then the administration notified the states that refused, including in California, that they would simply receive less money – for a melody of hundreds of millions of dollars – while the states that collaborate with immigration support will receive more.
California and others States under the leadership of the Democrats again suedApproving this week that the change in funds was nothing more than an administration that has been a court of the court's earlier against the stress of funds.
Bont’s office referred to a similar scheme on Thursday that the Trump administration retreated The main abbreviation of financing AmericanThe Victory field occurred only after consistent rounds of court proceedings from the state and others, the Bont’s office noted, including a changed complaint accusing the administration regarding the continuation of funding, despite the proposal of an earlier court decision prohibiting it.
Bont said that such strategies are changing “consistently and brazenly lawless and legislative federal administration”, and that his office was a “responsibility” to fight back and on time and so much as much as it would take.
“It cannot be that you are liability, bringing responsibility, the court found that you acted illegally, and then you just have another illegal action to try to limit or maintain the same funding,” he said.
Erwin Chestrinsky, Dean of the Law of the University of California in Berkeley, said that he agreed with Bonta, that there was a “pattern of ignoring court orders or attempts to get around them” by the Trump administration.
And he gave another example: the case when he represents the faculty and researchers of the University of California challenging of Trump administration National Fund of the Scientific Fund.
On Monday, the Director of the Directorate and the budget Vought tells about journalists outside the White House, accompanied by the speaker of the chamber, Mike Johnson, who was left, the leader of the majority in the Senate John Tun and the Vice -President of JD Vance.
(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)
After the judge blocked the administration from the completion of this financing, the Trump administration answered, saying that the funds were “suspended” instead, Khemrinsky said.
Then the judge decided that the administration was violating her order against dismissal, he said, since “to call their removal from them, and not the termination, nothing has changed.”
Mitchel Sollenberger, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan University and the author of several books on executive powers, said that Trump is aggressively bending these powers. Conservative leaders tried to restore the executive branch since the Congress decided in the presidency After WatergateAnd Trump also accepted an aggressive approach in his first term, said Sollenberger.
Nevertheless, the fact that Trump made this term, nevertheless, was stunning, said Sollenberger, the result of a complex and well-planned strategy, which was given a clear runway, the Supreme Court, which Clearly shares faith In the authorized executive department.
“It’s the same as watching how the water is lost, and it tries to find cracks,” Sollenberger said. “This is what Trump does. She is trying to find these cracks, where she can expand the gap and show more and more executive branches. ”
Bont noted that the purpose of the administration for state funding began almost immediately after Trump took office when the management and budget department issued a note, claiming that the huge amounts of federal funding for all types of programs were frozen As the administration appreciated whether Trump's political goals correspond to.
According to Bonta, California and other states filed a lawsuit to block this move and win, but the administration was not rejected from the strategy, as evidenced by later events.
On Wednesday, when the government stopped the inability of the Congress to accept the financing measure, the Russell Wut-head of the management and budget and the architect of the Trump administration in the wallet, which was funding about $ 8 billion to finance the agenda of the left-handed person. ” Then he listed 16 blue states where projects will be reduced.
Vought generally outlined his ideas to reduce the government in the 2025 project, the right play for the second term of Trump, with which Trump energetically denied any connection during his campaign, but but Since then it has been widely implementedField
On Thursday, Trump seemed to enjoy this opportunity, against the backdrop of closing, in order to implement a more plan.
“Today I have a meeting with Rus -Vyuch, he is from the Project 2025 to determine which of the many democratic agencies, most of which are political fraud, it recommends to be a reduction, and whether these reductions will be temporary or permanent,” – whether they are temporary or constant. ” Trump published onlineThe field “I cannot believe that radical left -wing democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”
Bont said on Wednesday that his office did not plan to participate in the closure, which, according to him, was caused by Trump and Trump to understand. ” But he said that he was closely following the battle.
Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) Recorded the last reduction in Vought on more illegal aiming at blue states, such as California, which oppose Trump politically, writing: “Our democracy is very broken when the president can illegally suspend projects for blue states to punish his political enemies.”
Cities and cities also repel the use of Trump federal financing as a political lever. On Wednesday, Los -Angels and other cities announced the trial, disputing the reduction of financing of natural disasters.
La City Atty. Heidi Feldstein Soto said that the reductions were part of the “unprecedented weapons” of federal financing by the Trump administration, and that she is proud to fight for “maintaining constitutional restrictions on exceeding the executive branch”.
