Fact Check: Thousands of grants terminated under Trump's 'agency priorities' clause.

Fact Check: Thousands of grants terminated under Trump's 'agency priorities' clause

What We Know

The claim that "thousands of grants were terminated under Trump's 'agency priorities' clause" is supported by multiple sources. According to a press release from Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, alleging that it unlawfully invoked a provision known as the "agency priorities clause" to terminate billions of dollars in federal funding for various state programs (Mass.gov). This clause allows federal agencies to terminate funding if it "no longer effectuates ... agency priorities," a practice that the lawsuit claims is a significant departure from previous norms where grants were not terminated based on shifting priorities (Michigan.gov).

The lawsuit highlights specific instances where critical funding was cut, such as an $11 million cooperative agreement with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and a $1 million grant for asthma reduction in low-income communities (Mass.gov). These terminations were justified by the Trump Administration's assertion that the programs no longer aligned with their agency priorities, despite their ongoing importance (Michigan.gov).

Analysis

The evidence supporting the claim is robust, as it comes from official statements by state attorneys general who are directly involved in the legal challenge against the Trump Administration. The lawsuits filed in multiple states, including Massachusetts and Michigan, assert that the invocation of the agency priorities clause has led to the termination of numerous grants that were previously awarded and deemed essential for public welfare (Mass.gov, Michigan.gov).

The reliability of these sources is high, as they are official communications from state government officials who are acting in their capacity as legal representatives of their states. Furthermore, the lawsuits reflect a coordinated effort among multiple states, indicating a widespread concern about the implications of the Trump Administration's actions on federal funding (AP News, Reuters).

Critics of the Trump Administration's approach argue that the use of the agency priorities clause represents an unprecedented shift in how federal funding is managed, suggesting that it undermines the legislative intent behind appropriations made by Congress (Michigan.gov). This perspective is echoed in the lawsuits, which claim that the terminations were not only unlawful but also harmful to communities that rely on these funds for essential services.

Conclusion

The claim that "thousands of grants were terminated under Trump's 'agency priorities' clause" is True. The evidence from multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general demonstrates that the Trump Administration did indeed invoke this clause to terminate numerous grants, significantly impacting funding for critical state programs. The legal challenges highlight the contention that this practice is both unprecedented and unlawful, raising serious concerns about the implications for federal-state funding relationships.

Fact Check: Thousands of grants terminated under Trump's 'agency priorities' clause.