Fact Check: "States could withhold federal payments if funding is unlawfully withheld."
What We Know
The claim that states could withhold federal payments if funding is unlawfully withheld stems from recent actions taken by various states in response to perceived illegal freezes on federal funding. For instance, lawmakers such as Richard E. Neal and Danny K. Davis have accused the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of illegally blocking states from accessing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds. They argue that federal law prohibits HHS from requiring states to provide information not specified in the law to access these funds.
Additionally, a coalition of 22 states, including Washington, has initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that it unlawfully froze federal financial assistance programs, which could potentially impact vital services such as childcare and healthcare (Washington joins multistate suit). The lawsuit claims that the administration's actions exceed its authority and violate federal law (Attorney General Nessel Joins 22 States).
Analysis
The assertion that states could withhold federal payments is supported by ongoing legal actions where states are challenging the federal government's authority to withhold funds. The lawsuit filed by Washington and other states argues that the federal government is exceeding its authority by freezing funds that have already been allocated by Congress (Judge pauses President Trump's federal funding freeze). This legal context suggests that states are exploring their options to respond to what they perceive as unlawful actions by the federal government.
However, the claim is nuanced. While states may seek to withhold federal payments in retaliation for unlawful withholding of funds, the legal framework governing such actions is complex. The federal government typically has significant authority over the distribution of federal funds, and states may face legal challenges if they attempt to withhold payments without clear legal justification (To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit).
Moreover, the effectiveness of such a strategy remains uncertain, as it could lead to further legal disputes and complications. The potential for states to act in this manner is more theoretical at this point, as it would depend on the legal outcomes of ongoing lawsuits and the specific circumstances surrounding the funding in question.
Conclusion
The claim that "states could withhold federal payments if funding is unlawfully withheld" is Partially True. While there is a basis for states to challenge the federal government's withholding of funds through legal action, the practical implications of such a strategy are complex and uncertain. States are currently pursuing legal avenues to address these issues, but the outcome of these actions will determine the feasibility of withholding federal payments in response to unlawful funding freezes.
Sources
- Neal, Davis Demand HHS Reverse Illegal Withholding of ... Link
- Washington joins multistate suit over federal financial ... Link
- Attorney General Nessel Joins 22 States in Suing to Stop ... Link
- Judge pauses President Trump's federal funding freeze Link
- Makai – G. Huffington Link
- To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new ... Link
- Makai (Berkeley Bred Book 3) by Grey Huffington | Goodreads Link
- To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit Link
