Salem, Oregon – Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is one of 21 attorneys general who are suing the Trump Administration over its recent attempts to cut off important federal funding for states across the country. The lawsuit, which was filed in the District of Massachusetts, says that the government is misusing a restricted federal rule to justify cutting billions of dollars in grants that had already been awarded.
Rayfield said that the complaint is about the administration’s use of a single clause in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules that lets agencies stop funding if it “no longer effectuates… agency priorities.” Some people say that this unclear terminology is now being used in ways that go beyond its intended scope. Instead of being utilized only when absolutely necessary, it is being used as a broad instrument to cut off financing for important initiatives without warning.
“This is about real money that keeps our communities safe, helps kids stay in school, ensures families have clean water to drink, and supports the research that drives medical breakthroughs,” said Rayfield. “The Trump Administration can’t just decide it doesn’t like Congress’s priorities and pull the plug. Oregonians deserve stability, accountability, and a federal government that keeps its promises.”
The changes to financing that started after President Trump took office have affected a lot of services that the federal government supports. Congress had already approved the grants in question and given them to each state to tackle specific needs, such as combatting violent crime, improving public health studies, and making sure people had enough food.
The lawsuit cites an executive order from President Trump in February that told government agencies and people from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to start canceling a lot of awards. Since then, many federal departments, such as Agriculture, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and the EPA, have used the OMB clause to stop funding for a lot of projects.
According to the attorneys general, what makes this move so alarming is that it goes against decades of tradition. In the past, government agencies respected the funding process and didn’t take away awards in the middle of the process just because their priorities changed. The complaint says that these kinds of cancellations not only hurt people’s trust in the government, but they also go against what Congress clearly meant to do.
Read also: Graduate students facing record-high loan interest could get relief under new federal proposal
The states are asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that makes it clear that federal agencies cannot legally stop financing because their priorities change after the awards are awarded. They say that without this kind of transparency, hundreds of billions of dollars in federal financing might always be up in the air.
Rayfield joins his counterparts from across the country, including the attorneys general of California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and others, in asserting that the administration’s interpretation of the OMB rule threatens the stability of programs Americans depend on every day.
