The cuts to several states come amid an escalating fraud fallout fueled by a dubious YouTube investigation of Minnesota day cares.
The Trump administration on Monday said it had slashed billions in social services funds to a handful of blue states as part of its escalating response to new and unproven fraud allegations in Minnesota.
The Department of Health and Human Services will freeze $10 billion worth of federal grants to California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York, an HHS official told HuffPost, confirming news first reported by The New York Post.
It’s not clear whether the freeze was inspired by specific fraud allegations or solely for political reasons. Officials did not immediately provide a public explanation.
Is it normal in the US to create different laws for different states?
In the EU, every country is adhering to the same laws. The only way to differentiate between them is to create the law with prerequisites the countries need to adhere to. That means the law will change to any country if they manage to change their adherence.
Yes and no. Laws can be designed for different states or even interpreted differently based on state law. A good example is conditional funding based on certain criteria, drinking age for example. What is unusual, and maybe unconstitutional, is if the laws are designed to target certain groups or political affiliations. So if the purpose or effect violates constitutional protections, such as equal protection, due process, the First Amendment, or bans on bills of attainder (laws targeting specific people). But we all know with this administration it is a free-for-all since so much of this shit is blatantly either illegal or unconstitutional and nothing is being done to stop them.
You’re talking about State laws being different.
They’re asking about the Federal government applying federal laws differently to select States.
Which is very not normal.
No I really wasn’t.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jurisdictions_subject_to_the_special_provisions_of_the_Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
Now it’s not common but it’s not unprecedented.
The reasons he’s doing it this time are not normal.
I don’t think anything this dude is doing is legal or constitutional. But since the supreme court and congress has let him do it, that doesn’t really matter in reality.
Congress allocated social services funds so the executive can’t legally block that
There are no conditions, so they can’t block it over an unrelated matter
The president can’t just decide to block social services funds based on some idiot streamer’s claim
The President can’t legally block social services funding to random states just because they lean against his party - they’re not even trying to justify that
The President may be able to “swarm” federal agents for a suspected fraud claim but it would be stupid. Even stupider if based only on a random YouTuber.
50 states is almost like 50 different countries. Federal law covers some things but a lot is also left up to the states.