Trump admin must restore AmeriCorps programs in 24 states, judge rules
Her ruling applied only to the Democratic-led states who sued in April to challenge what they said was an unlawful dismantling of AmeriCorps by Republican President Donald Trump's administration.
More: What is AmeriCorps? What to know about the latest organization impacted by DOGE cuts
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat who helped lead the litigation, in a statement said the ruling safeguards services communities rely on to educate students, preserve parks and care for the elderly from "unlawful and reckless cuts."
AmeriCorps did not respond to requests for comment.
A White House spokesperson in a statement said Trump "has the right to restore accountability to the entire executive branch, and this will not be the final say on the matter."
AmeriCorps' grants fund local and national organizations that offer community services related to education, disaster preparedness, conservation and more. It sends more than 200,000 volunteers out nationally as part of its programs.
The states sued after the administration terminated over 1,000 grants and placed 85% of AmeriCorps' staff on administrative leave with the intent to terminate them effective June 24 as part of a push by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency to shrink the federal government.
The cuts impacted $396.5 million in federal funding for AmeriCorps programs and tens of thousands of volunteers nationally. The agency has a roughly $1 billion budget and had more than 500 employees when Trump took office.
Democratic state attorneys general argued Trump lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to gut AmeriCorps, which was created by Congress, and that the agency failed to follow proper procedures before altering program services.
Boardman, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, partially agreed, saying AmeriCorps failed to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before making major changes.
"Because the agency did not provide notice and an opportunity to comment before it made significant changes to service delivery, the States were unable to voice their concerns about these changes," she wrote.
But Boardman said the states lacked standing to block the mass job cuts, saying an anticipated delay in their grant applications being reviewed due to reduced staff was not sufficient grounds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
David Lammy refuses to say if US Iran strikes were illegal
The US attacked three sites in Iran at the weekend, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme. Asked about the lawfulness of the strikes on Monday, the Foreign Secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that as the UK was "not involved" it was "for the Americans to discuss those issues". It was put to him that the UK Government had a firm view on whether Russia attacking Ukraine was legal, which he said was not a 'moral equivalence'. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Donald Trump bombing Iran is illegal and insane He said: 'There isn't a moral equivalence here'. He added it had been "crystal clear' that Moscow invaded a sovereign nation. When it was put to him that it was extraordinary he could not answer the question as critics argue Iran is also a sovereign nation which was attacked without warning, he said: 'I don't think it is extraordinary because this was not the UK's action, we were not involved, we were clear when this began and Israel's attacks began that we were not involved… so I don't say it's not legitimate, but I can tell you as Foreign Secretary that we were not involved.' Lammy added that Iran has to 'get serious about the off-ramp that is being made available to them' and that 'ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy.' (Image: Kin Cheung) The Foreign Secretary said Donald Trump's action 'may well have set back Iran several years', and enrichment of uranium at 60% cannot be allowed to 'slide'. Trump has floated the possibility of leadership change in Iran, hours after his team said replacing the Iranian government was not the aim of US attacks. Iran's military has vowed a "decisive response" after Trump said US strikes caused "monumental damage" to Iranian nuclear sites. The UN's nuclear watchdog has called for a ceasefire in order to inspect the damage. Asked about Trump's posts on Truth Social about regime change in Tehran, Lammy said: 'There will be further tweets on many issues over the next three-and-a-half years of Donald Trump's leadership that you will be discussing… the rhetoric is strong but actually I can tell you, having spoken to the Secretary of State, having sat in the White House, that this is targeted action to deal with Iran's nuclear capability.' READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack He added: 'I'm very conscious that when I met colleagues in the White House on Thursday that they were considering all of the options… we knew that, you knew that as journalists. And Donald Trump made a decision to act to degrade that capability. "It may well have set back Iran by several years. That was a decision that he took.' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'. He has been accused of providing "political cover" for Israel and the US. The US attacked three sites in Iran including the Fordo facility, which is buried deep underground. In an address to the nation from the White House, Trump warned there could be further strikes if Iran retaliates. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi warned the attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump decision for US to strike Iran splits Maga supporters
Update: Date: 2025-06-23T09:45:45.000Z Title: Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards Content: Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. I am Tom Ambrose and I'll be bringing you all the latest news lines over the next few hours. We start with news that Saturday's US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump's 'Make America great again' (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts. The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack 'our homeland' in retaliation. 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,' Greene wrote on X. But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening. In that message, Greene wrote: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes. Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, 'It hasn't been lost … that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank.' Read the full report here: In other developments: JD Vance has said the US is 'not at war' with Iran – but is with its nuclear weapons program, holding out a position that the White House hopes to maintain over the coming days as the Iranian regime considers a retributive response to Saturday's US strike on three of its nuclear installations. A Tennessee judge on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges. But he is not expected to be allowed to go free. Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian rights activist, freed from Ice detention on Friday, returned to Columbia University on Sunday to renew his commitment to the cause of Palestinian freedom and opposition to both the university and the Trump administration. 'Ticking timebomb': Ice detainee dies in transit as experts say more deaths likely. Republican representative's ectopic pregnancy clashes with Florida abortion law. Gun-wielding attacker killed at church in suburban Detroit.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___
