Trump uses repeated funding cuts to pressure California, complicating state’s legal fight

The Federal Bureau of Crime Victims has announced in summer that millions of dollars approved for survivors of domestic violence and other victims of crimes would be refused to states that do not comply with the Trump administration immigration policies.

California, 19 other states and the Columbia district continued, alleging that such prerequisites are illegal and are undergoing public security.

The administration then obtained a different approach, announcing that community organizations which receive such funding from states – and use it to help people escape violence, access shelter and deposit restraint prescriptions against their attackers – may generally not use it to provide services to undocumented immigrants.

California and other states have continued again, arguing that the requirements – which, according to the administration, must apply – are also illegal and dangerous. Lawyers have agreed, saying that the screening for immigrants in these programs would be cruel.

Repeated proceedings reflect an increasingly familiar scheme in the growing mountain of disputes between the Trump administration, California and other blue states.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration tried to force states to submit to a multitude of political fronts by reducing federal funding, part of a desire to bypass the congress and considerably widen the executive power. On several occasions, when these cuts were challenged in court, the administration moved its approach to go after funding even or similar from a slightly different angle – which caused more disputes.

Repeated proceedings have added complexity and volume to an already monumental legal war between administration and states like California, which started almost immediately after Trump took office and is underway, because the administration again threatens major reductions in the middle of the government’s closure.

The White House previously rejected prosecution in California as founding and defended Trump’s right to promulgate its political program, including retaining the funds. Asked about his change strategies in some of these cases, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said that the administration “had won numerous cases concerning spending reductions in the Supreme Court and will continue to reduce unnecessary expenses through the government in a legal manner.”

Other administration officials have also defended its legal tactics. During a fight against federal funding frozen earlier this year, for example, vice -president JD Vance wrote on social networks that judges “are not authorized to control the legitimate power of the executive” – ​​aroused concerns concerning a constitutional crisis.

California Atty. General Rob Bonta said that the scheme is the result of Trump overvaluing his power to control federal funding and using it as a weapon against his political opponents, but also of his dangerous contempt for the rule of law and the authority of the Congress and Federal Judges. His office has continued the administration more than 40 times since January, several times in terms of funding.

“It is not something you should have to see that a federal government, a president of the United States, is so contemptuous with regard to the rule of law and is willing to break it and break it again, to be informed by a court that they violated the law, then must be informed by a court again,” said Bonta.

And yet, such examples abound, he said. For example, repeated attempts by the Ministry of Justice to strip California to fund the victims of crimes echoed repeated attempts from the Ministry of Homeland Security recently to refuse funding for help in the event of a disaster and the State, Bonta said.

Internal security officials first declared to the States that this funding would be conditioned on their compliance with the efforts to apply immigration. California and other states have continued, and a federal judge rejected prerequisites as unconstitutional.

The administration then informed the states that refused to comply, including California, that they would simply receive less money – up to hundreds of millions of dollars – while states that cooperate with the application of immigration to receive more.

California and other states led by Democrats have continued again, arguing this week that the change of funds was nothing more than the administration bypassing the previous decision against the packaging of the funds.

The Bonta office cited a similar scheme by announcing Thursday that the Trump administration had supported major reductions in American funding. The victory only came after successive dispute cycles and others, noted the Bonta office, including a modified complaint accusing the administration of continuing to retain funding despite an order from the previous court which prohibited it from doing so.

Bonta said such changing strategies were the work of a federal administration “regularly and cheerfully without law and realization” and that his office was “linked” to retaliate and do it – as many times as it takes.

“He cannot take a measure, be held responsible, a court notes that you acted illegally, then you simply take another illegal measure to try to restrict or retain this same funding,” he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law, said that he agreed with Bonta that there was “a model of ignorance of the judicial orders or trying to get around” from the Trump administration.

And he provided another example: a case in which he represents professors and researchers from the University of California questioning the Trump administration cuts to the financing of the National Science Foundation.

The director of the management and budget office, Russell Vought, talks to journalists from the White House on Monday, accompanied by the president of the Mike Johnson room, on the left, the head of the majority of the Senate John Thune and the vice-president JD Vance.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

After a judge prevented the administration from putting an end to this funding, the Trump administration replied by declaring that the funds were “suspended” instead, said Chemerinsky.

The judge then judged that the administration raped his order against the dismissal, he said, as “calling them suspensions rather than layoffs has changed anything”.

Mitchel Sollenberger, professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on the executive powers, said that Trump stirred this powers aggressively. Conservative leaders have been trying to restore executive authorities since the congress reduced the presidency after Watergate, and Trump adopted an aggressive approach during his first mandate, said Sollenberger.

However, what Trump did this term was nevertheless surprising, said Sollenberger – the result of a sophisticated and well -planned strategy which received a clear track by a supreme courtyard which clearly shares a belief in an authorized executive branch.

“It’s like watching the water go down and he tries to find cracks,” said Sollenberger. “This is what the Trump administration does. He tries to find these cracks where it can expand the gap and make more and more executive power.”

Bonta noted that the targeting by the administration of the financing of the blue state began almost immediately after Trump took office, when the management and budget office published a memo stating that large sums of federal funding for all kinds of programs were frozen while the administration evaluated if the expenses aligned with Trump’s policy objectives.

California and other states have continued to block this move and have won, but the administration was not diverted from the strategy, Bonta said – as evidenced by more recent events.

On Wednesday, when the government closed the inability of the congress to adopt an established financing measure, Russell Vought – Manager of the Management and Budget Office and Architect of the Trump Administration Chain Chain Policies – announced on X that $ 8 billion in financing “to feed the order of the left climate” were in the course of cancellation. He then listed 16 blue states where the projects will be cut.

Vought had largely described his government reduction ideas in the 2025 project, the right game book for Trump’s second term, to which Trump vigorously denied any link during his campaign, but has since largely implemented.

Trump seemed to savor the opportunity on Thursday in the middle of the closure, to implement more plan.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, that of the renown of the 2025 project, to determine which of the many Democratic agencies, most of which are a political scam, it recommends being cut, and whether these cuts will be or not temporary or permanent,” published Trump online. “I cannot believe that the Radical Democrats on the left gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

Bonta said on Wednesday that his office did not intend to get involved in the closure, which he said had been caused by Trump and “so that Trump understands it”. But he said he was watching the battle closely.

Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) As much as the last Vought cuts to a more illegal targeting of blue states such as California which are politically opposed to Trump, writing: “Our democracy is seriously broken when a president can illegally suspend projects for blue states in order to punish his political enemies.”

Cities and cities have also rejected the use by Trump of federal funding as a political lever effect. On Wednesday, Los Angeles and other cities announced a trial contesting the cuts to funding disasters.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said that the cuts were part of an “unprecedented armament” of federal funding by the Trump administration, and that it was proud to fight to “preserve the constitutional limits of setting up executives”.