WA Lands Commissioner pauses timber harvest from mature forests

Some workers in Burien might soon see their paychecks increase. 

Measure 1, a citizen initiative to expand Burien’s minimum wage policy, was leading after the second round of ballot counting on Wednesday with 55% of voters in support. 

If it passes, Measure 1 will replace a minimum wage policy recently adopted by the Burien City Council with a new version that increases the number of businesses required to pay a full minimum wage. 

The City Council’s law raised the wage floor to $21.16 when it went into effect at the start of this year. But initiative supporters argued that the city’s law didn’t represent a true wage increase because it came with a number of exceptions that allowed some businesses to continue paying less — for instance, those with small staffs and ones where employees get tips. 

Measure 1 would remove many of those exemptions. It would also tie Burien’s minimum wage to that of the neighboring jurisdiction of Tukwila, where the wage cap is currently $21.10 and set to increase with inflation. 

“It just means that more people in our community are going to make a better living wage,” Jennifer Fichamba, a Burien resident who helped lead the Measure 1 campaign, said in an interview last week. 

The initiative to get Measure 1 on the ballot was led by the Transit Riders Union, a progressive advocacy group that in recent years has led successful campaigns to raise the wage floor in nearby jurisdictions like SeaTac and Tukwila. Many business owners opposed the initiative, supporting the City Council’s law and arguing that the exemptions were necessary to protect small employers. 

The City Council’s law allows businesses to count an employee’s tips and benefits toward an employee’s total wage. It also allows businesses with fewer than 20 employees working within King County to continue paying a wage as low as the state’s $16.66 minimum. 

Measure 1 will remove the carveout for tips and benefits. It will also change how business sizes are calculated: “Small” businesses with fewer than 15 employees total (not just in King County) will pay $18.10 an hour, and “medium” businesses with 15 to 499 employees will pay $19.10 an hour. Businesses with more than 500 employees will pay the full $21.10. There will be a gradual phase-in; by 2031, businesses of all sizes in Burien will be held to the same wage standard. 

Measure 1 would also expand an employee’s right to take private legal action if they believe their employer isn’t compliant, and create a new rule that says businesses have to offer available hours to existing employees before hiring new ones. 

The idea of raising the wage may also be a topic in Olympia this year. A group of House Democrats are backing House Bill 1764, which would raise the state’s minimum wage by $1.50 each year until it reaches $25 by the start of 2031.

With just a few days remaining before the Feb. 11 special election, some of Seattle’s most prominent businesses are spending big to oppose a new tax to fund social housing.  

The People for Responsible Social Housing PAC has raised more than $434,000 and spent more than $515,000 opposing Proposition 1A and supporting Proposition 1B, according to data from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. The bulk of the spending has been on campaign mailers along with other digital advertising.  

Microsoft and Amazon each contributed $100,000. The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce gave $35,000 in cash and $5,400 through in-kind services. T-Mobile, timber company Weyerhaeuser, Puget Sound Energy, Alaska Airlines and the Seattle Kraken ownership group contributed $5,000-$20,000 as well.  

Voters must go through a two-step process to decide if and how to fund social housing, a form of mixed-income, publicly owned affordable housing. They must first vote Yes or No on whether to fund social housing at all. They then choose between Prop 1A or Prop 1B.  

If passed, Prop 1A would levy a 5% “excess compensation” tax on employer payroll expenses for each Seattle-based employee paid over $1 million in annual compensation. Employers would pay a 5% tax on any dollar over $1 million in total employee compensation.  

The tax would generate an estimated $50 million a year that would go to the newly created Seattle Social Housing Developer to pay for construction of housing meant for lower-income to upper-middle-income residents. Higher-income residents would pay higher rents, which would help subsidize the lower rents paid by lower-income residents.  

Seattle voters approved the creation of the Seattle Social Housing Developer in the February 2023 election, which had been put on the ballot through a citizens’ initiative led by advocate group House Our Neighbors. The same group collected signatures to put the excess compensation tax to a vote this Feb. 11.  

The Let’s Build Social Housing PAC has raised more than $239,000 this year to support Prop 1A, with $125,000 from the Inatai Foundation and $60,000 from Participatory Budgeting Oregon. Labor unions IBEW Local 46 and UFCW 3000 contributed, along with advocacy orgs and nonprofits such as 350 Seattle and Washington Community Action Network. Almost half of the 2025 contributions came from individual donors. The PAC raised more than $353,000 in 2024 during the campaign to get 1A on the ballot, 87% of which came from individual contributors.  

In September, the Seattle City Council voted to place a competing measure on the ballot. 

Instead of creating a new tax, Prop 1B draws from the existing Jumpstart payroll tax. It also caps the income limits for social-housing residents at a lower level than outlined in the Seattle Social Housing Developer charter voters approved in 2023.   

Seattle’s Chamber of Commerce has led the campaign against creating a new business tax with Prop 1A. The Chamber has called into question the Social Housing Developer’s ability to handle $50 million a year in revenue, since the newly created organization currently has only one staff member and a volunteer board of directors. Up to 5% of revenue from either Prop 1A or Prop 1B could be used for the developer’s administrative costs, including staffing.  

New polling from the Northwest Progressive Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that voters are nearly evenly split between Props 1A and 1B, with 33% preferring 1A, 31% preferring 1B and 17% not sure.  

Ballots must be returned before 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 11. 

Washington State University appointed Elizabeth Cantwell as its 12th president on Thursday, Feb. 6. Her term will begin on April 1. Kirk Schulz, president since 2016, will step down on March 30, but stay on through June as a senior advisor to support the transition. 

The WSU Board of Regents unanimously selected Cantwell out of 260 candidates, according to the campus news release. She will be the school’s first woman President.

Cantwell currently serves as president of Utah State University, a post she’s held since August 2023. According to the WSU press release, during her brief tenure, sponsored research expenditures at the school reached a high $495 million, student scholarships increased by 10%, and she oversaw numerous campus infrastructure improvements. But The Salt Lake Tribune describes her tenure as “embattled,” as she navigated the school through numerous high-profile incidents.

Before that, Cantwell was the chief executive officer of Arizona State University Research Enterprise, where she grew the organization from $425 million to $680 million in three years. At the University of Arizona, she oversaw an $825 million annual research portfolio. 

“I am deeply honored by the trust the Board of Regents has placed in me to lead this incredible institution,” Cantwell said in the news release. “To be selected to lead this esteemed institution as its 12th president is a profound privilege. I’ve long admired Washington State University, and a couple of years ago my family’s connection to the university deepened when my daughter became a Coug, enrolling in one of WSU’s graduate programs. This opportunity to serve WSU as president is truly a dream come true!”

A federal judge in Seattle locked in an injunction Thursday that stops a Trump administration attempt to deny birthright citizenship to kids born in the United States to undocumented parents. 

Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order that lasted 14 days. Thursday’s injunction stops Trump’s executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented parents until the case is resolved or a higher court overrules Coughenour.  

The judge slammed Trump’s executive order, saying it is obviously unconstitutional. “It’s become more apparent that the rule of law is an impediment to his goals,” Coughenour said.  

He said the only legal way to remove birthright citizenship is through changing the 14th Amendment. 

“This reminds the country that we don’t have a king. We have a president,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said after the hearing.  

State Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola told Coughenour at Thursday’s hearing that Trump is arguing that “some people who are born here are less than other.” The 14th Amendment’s purpose “is to protect our citizens from inflamed political passions,” added Matt Adams, an attorney for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the state’s ally in the litigation.  

Federal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign’s counter-argument is that birthright citizenship applies only to people subject to American legal jurisdiction, noting that tribes in the 19th century were not covered by the 14th Amendment, and had to have their citizenship nailed down in a law passed shortly afterwards. He argued that children of undocumented citizens fell into this category. 

“It’s a strange legal theory not supported by the Supreme Court,” Brown said. 

The 14th Amendment, which was created after the abolition of slavery following the Civil War, begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  

The Migration Policy Institute, which advocates for immigration and integration policies, estimates that Washington had about 250,000 undocumented immigrants as of 2019. About 38% of those families have at least one U.S. citizen child under 18. The group did not have information about adult U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants. 

The Washington Post said it is unclear how many U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are in the United States or are born each year. About 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 were estimated to be living with an undocumented parent in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew estimated that at least 1.3 million adults have parents who are undocumented, though it noted the method of data collection for that statistic was likely incomplete. 

Right now, there are two parallel challenges to Trump’s executive order. 

Washington is leading a coalition of Oregon, Arizona and Illinois in challenging the order in federal court in Seattle. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project is also part of this lawsuit, representing two expecting mothers — Honduran Cherly Norales and El Salvadoran Alicia Chavarria, both living in Seattle — and a proposed class including pregnant people in Washington who would be impacted by the president’s order. 

Eighteen other states are pursuing a similar lawsuit in federal court in Maryland. The U.S. District Court judge in Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman, granted a similar injunction on Wednesday. The two lawsuits will proceed independently.  

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard. 

President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Joe Kent, a former Army Special Forces soldier and two-time Republican candidate for a congressional seat in southwest Washington, to be director of the National Counterterrorism Center. 

“As a soldier, Green Beret, and CIA officer, Joe has hunted down terrorists and criminals his entire adult life,” Trump wrote on X. “Joe will help us keep America safe by eradicating all terrorism, from the jihadists around the World, to the cartels in our backyard.” 

A short time later, Kent responded on the social media platform. 

“It’s an honor to serve our nation again, time to keep our nation safe & strong!” he wrote. 

Trump’s announcement comes three months after Kent lost a second bid for a U.S. House seat to Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez. 

The first run came in 2022. Kent, an ardent Trump supporter, beat incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd Congressional District primary. He and other conservative Republicans targeted Herrera Beutler for her vote to impeach Trump in 2021. 

But that fall, Kent couldn’t hold the seat for Republicans, losing to Gluesenkamp Pérez, a relative unknown, by 2,629 votes in what was considered one of the biggest upsets of that year’s elections. 

In their rematch in November, Gluesenkamp Pérez beat Kent by 16,000 votes. 

Kent is an Oregon native. He grew up in Portland and at 18 enlisted in the U.S. Army. He had 11 combat deployments and served as a Ranger and Special Forces soldier. He has a degree in strategic studies and defense analysis from Norwich University. In 2020 he served as a foreign affairs advisor to the Trump campaign. 

In 2019 his wife, Shannon Kent, a Navy cryptologic technician, was killed by an Islamic State group suicide bomber in northeastern Syria. Kent remarried in 2023 and lives in Yacolt.  

Kent would lead an agency founded in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and tasked with gathering and analyzing information to help thwart terrorism. He would oversee a staff of more than 1,000 people and answer to the director of national intelligence. 

The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation. 

During his 2022 run for Congress, Kent drew scrutiny for links to far-right groups and his embrace of election conspiracy theories. 

“He’s a destructive choice to lead the National Counterterrorism Center,” Washington state Democratic Party chair Shasti Conrad said in a statement on Monday. “Someone who called for defunding the FBI and promotes conspiracy theories cannot be trusted with our national security.” 

Washington state Republican Party chair Jim Walsh applauded Trump’s selection of Kent. “Excellent news!” he posted on social media. 

The Washington State Standard originally published this story Feb. 3, 2025. 

The University of Washington Board of Regents announced Monday that Robert J. Jones will become the 34th President of the University of Washington. Jones, ending a nine-year tenure as Chancellor of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, will begin his five-year contract on August 1. 

Jones will become the first African American to serve in the role, according to the UW. 

“I look forward to working with the UW’s talented and dedicated faculty and staff to support and accelerate their work, and to partnering with the UW’s supporters to advance students’ success, economic opportunity and discovery for the public good,” Jones wrote in the announcement. 

President Ana Mari Cauce announced last year that she would step down from the role she held for a decade.

“His inspiring and barrier- breaking personal journey, highly regarded scholarship and decades of transformative leadership convinced us that Chancellor Jones is the ideal person to build upon President Ana Mari Cauce’s legacy,” Board of Regents Chair Blaine Tamaki said in the announcement. 

Jones, who has served at the University of Illinois since 2016, said his priorities include focusing on affordability for students and making education accessible. 

He also served as the President of the University at Albany from 2013-2016, which will make his UW presidency his third post leading a public research university. At Albany, he added academic units and degree-granting programs and expanded faculty research opportunities and student learning. 

The Seattle City Council is creating a new committee to respond to the volley of executive orders from President Donald Trump that have the potential to impact everything from federal grants to immigrant communities to LGBTQ+ rights.  

Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposed creating the Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes on Jan. 31.  

“Many organizations, programs and people within Seattle rely on federal funding to carry out their work and live healthy lives,” wrote Rinck in a press statement. “What is clear is that major changes are underway on the federal front, and local leaders must be tuned in.” 

Rinck cited a lengthy list of local issues that could be impacted by the loss of federal money, including housing, public safety, transportation, emergency and disaster aid, climate change, public health, human and social services, immigration, nutrition, economic development, small businesses and education. 

Council President Sara Nelson circulated a memo on Jan. 31 to create the committee.  

“It’s my responsibility as an elected official and as Seattle City Council President to make sure every one of my constituents feels safe, particularly our most vulnerable communities who are being targeted by the onslaught of executive orders on a daily basis. We’re all seeing the chaos and uncertainty in Washington, D.C. but we’re focused on stability here,” Nelson wrote in a press statement. 

Select committees like the one proposed by Rinck comprise all nine Council members and are meant to focus more sharply on an issue such as the city budget. They take up early versions of legislation to discuss and amend before bills head to a full City Council meeting for a final vote. 

The Council expects to hold the first meeting of the Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes in early March.

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

As the Trump administration pursues its hard-line immigration agenda, Democratic lawmakers in Washington are trying to take steps to protect immigrant communities in the state. 

Rep. Sharlett Mena is sponsoring House Bill 1321, which would limit other states’ National Guard troops from deploying in Washington without the governor’s permission — unless they are mobilized by the president. 

“I think the last thing we want to see is folks feeling scared in their communities or feeling like they’re going to get rounded up at work or at school,” Mena said. 

The bill is a response to 26 Republican governors releasing a joint statement in December saying they were “ready to utilize every tool at our disposal — whether through state law enforcement or the National Guard” to support President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. 

“It is my concern that there would be other states wanting to enforce federal immigration law,” Mena said. 

In recent years, states have sent their National Guard troops to other states to support immigration enforcement. 

Two months after former President Joe Biden took office, Texas launched “Operation Lone Star,” aimed at increasing security along the state’s section of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The program, which has cost more than $11 billion to date, has used federal funds and the Texas National Guard. But multiple Republican states, like Florida and Montana, have used their own budgets to send National Guard troops to support Texas. 

The National Guard is a state-based military force when not activated for federal service and is under the command of the state governor and the president of the United States. Some states also have State Guards, which are under state control.

The National Guard operates under three statuses. Under “state active duty” the Guard is under control of the governor in the state where it’s based. Under “Title 10 status” it is under the control of the president and temporarily becomes part of the federal armed forces. And under “Title 32 status” the National Guard is under control of the governor but may perform certain duties specified by Congress or missions requested by the president. 

This bill would only prevent the National Guard from entering Washington when it is being operated under state active duty and Title 32 status. It would not affect Title 10 status, in which a president calls on the National Guard for an operation. 

It would also not prevent the state military from training or readiness or impede the ability of the National Guard to provide support during an emergency or natural disaster. 

Many states, including Republican strongholds like Texas, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma, already have laws on the books that are similar to the proposal Mena is pushing.  

“I actually don’t think it has to be a partisan issue, because the political winds and the other Washington change so frequently that other states have seen the need for this,” Mena said. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson supports the bill, highlighting it in his inaugural address earlier this month. Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for the governor’s office, testified in support during a House committee hearing Wednesday, saying the bill is a necessary precautionary measure. 

House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, has highlighted the bill as a proactive measure the state could take in response to Trump-era policies. 

But Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, a member of the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee and also state Republican Party chair, described the bill as a solution in search of a problem. He doesn’t see a scenario where it’s needed.

“The important thing is it doesn’t affect the federalization of the National Guard,” Walsh said. “If the president decided there (was an) immigration enforcement crisis and nationalized Guard units, then they could be implemented at the border if that ever happened.”

“This bill wouldn’t prevent that,” he said.

Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero is a WSU Murrow Fellow at the Washington State Standard. The Washington State Standard originally published this story on Jan. 30, 2025.

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Wednesday rescinded a memo issued less than 48 hours earlier that had called for a spending freeze on numerous federal grant and loan programs.

The original memo, released Monday evening by the Office of Management and Budget, led to widespread confusion and frustration by organizations like Meals on Wheels and grantees that rely on funding from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, as well as members of Congress from both political parties.

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., released a statement on Wednesday afternoon that the Trump administration reversing course was the right decision.

“This is an important victory for the American people whose voices were heard after massive pressure from every corner of this country — real people made a difference by speaking out,” Murray wrote. “Still, the Trump administration—through a combination of sheer incompetence, cruel intentions, and a willful disregard of the law — caused real harm and chaos for millions over the span of the last 48 hours which is still ongoing.”

OMB’s decision to rescind the memo Wednesday followed the White House making public assurances Tuesday that the spending freeze wouldn’t impact Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and direct food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Two separate lawsuits seeking to block the OMB memo from taking effect on Tuesday evening at 5 p.m. were filed in federal district court.

The lawsuit filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance led to a federal district court judge placing a temporary hold on the planned spending freeze until Feb. 3 at 5 p.m.

A separate federal judge is set to hear arguments from Democratic state attorneys general Wednesday afternoon over whether he should issue a temporary restraining order that would also block the OMB memo from taking effect while the court case continues.

It wasn’t immediately clear how OMB rescinding its Monday evening memo would impact those two lawsuits, though they would likely be dropped.

The Washington State Standard originally published this story on Jan. 29, 2025.

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge ruled Tuesday the Trump administration must wait until at least next week before it can move forward with pausing federal spending on trillions in grants and loans, though she emphasized the short-term administrative stay might not continue after a Feb. 3 hearing.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s decision temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with plans to stop payments on multiple federal programs, which it announced late Monday.

The two-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget announcing the freeze led to significant confusion throughout the day Tuesday among members of Congress — including Republicans — about what programs were affected and frustration the White House appeared to be eroding lawmakers’ constitutional spending authority.

AliKhan’s ruling came less than 24 hours after news broke of the Trump administration’s planned action.

AliKhan said after hearing arguments from an attorney for the organizations that filed the lawsuit earlier Tuesday, and from an attorney representing the federal government, that “anything that was due to be paused as of 5 p.m. today to open funding on grants is stayed.”

AliKhan, appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden, added that any funding impacted by separate executive orders is not covered by the temporary administrative stay she issued. She ordered for both sides in the case to file briefs to her later this week, and scheduled a hearing for Feb. 3 at 11 a.m. Eastern.

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the organizations that filed the suit, said shortly afterward there are several steps ahead to fully block OMB’s actions.

“A lot more work to do in the courts … to ensure that this reckless action, or attempted action by OMB, can’t move forward in the long term,” Yentel said.

Confusion on Medicaid

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to downplay the impact of the spending freeze during her first-ever briefing, saying it wouldn’t apply to individual assistance programs, like Social Security or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or welfare benefits.

She was unable to answer questions about the effect on Medicaid benefits but a later White House memo claimed they would continue without interruption. Nonetheless, Democratic U.S. senators reported Medicaid portals in all 50 states were down on Tuesday.

Leavitt said the White House counsel’s office had signed off on the temporary spending pause and believed it was legal and constitutional, but she later told reporters she didn’t know the full scope of the impact and would have to circle back after the briefing ended.

“I have not seen the entire list because this memo was just sent out, so I will provide you all with updates as we receive them,” Leavitt said. 

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said in a brief interview she supports the Trump administration reviewing federal spending to look for ways to improve efficiency, but said the OMB’s action was too broad.

“This is far too sweeping and will have an adverse effect on the delivery of services and programs,” Collins said. “I do appreciate that the administration did not apply it to Social Security, Medicare, direct benefit programs. But nevertheless, it does have a large impact on the provision of services and programs.”

Collins said she had concerns about the Head Start program being listed among those that will have a spending freeze. 

“There are a lot of federal programs that appear to be swept up in this order, and I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example,” Collins said. “But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.”

Multiple memos

The original OMB memo sent out late Monday evening appeared to apply to large swaths of federal financial assistance, including grants and loans, though a memo footnote said it should not be “construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” It did not mention an exemption for Medicaid.

“Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again,” the OMB memo states.

A separate memo from OMB lists off the programs that will be paused temporarily while it reviews which federal spending it deems appropriate.

The list includes the Department of Agriculture’s tribal food sovereignty program, Head Start, the Veterans’ Affairs Department’s suicide prevention and legal services grants, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, or LIHEAP, program, and numerous sexual assault prevention programs within the Department of Justice.

A third document from OMB, sent to Capitol Hill, claimed that Medicaid would not be affected. However, some senators reported the Medicaid portal was inaccessible on Tuesday afternoon.

“In addition to Social Security and Medicare, already explicitly excluded in the guidance, mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP will continue without pause,” the OMB document states. “Funds for small businesses, farmers, Pell grants, Head Start, rental assistance, and other similar programs will not be paused. If agencies are concerned that these programs may implicate the President’s Executive Orders, they should consult OMB to begin to unwind these objectionable policies without a pause in the payments.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden posted on social media that his staff had “confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night’s federal funding freeze.”

“This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed,” Wyden wrote.

Yentel, of the groups that sued, said while Leavitt argued that the memo did not impact those in need of direct assistance, OMB did not define who counts as “direct assistance.”

She said during a briefing with reporters that the memo leaves “a lot of room to who defines direct assistance to Americans.” Yentel said she would consider one of the programs impacted, Head Start, as direct assistance.

Order prompts legal challenges

Numerous organizations — including the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance — filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday ahead of the temporary pause taking effect.

Democratic attorneys general were also preparing to file a lawsuit, challenging the legality of the temporary spending pause on grants and loans.

New York state Attorney General Letitia James said during a virtual press conference announcing the lawsuit that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers by instituting the temporary spending pause.

“This president has exceeded his authority, he has violated the Constitution and he has trampled on a co-equal branch of government,” James said.

She said Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit were not trying to be “adversarial” or seeking to block Trump’s agenda.

“This is a question of the Constitution and the rule of law. And all of us took an oath to obey the Constitution and to uphold it,” James said.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during the press briefing that the lawsuit wasn’t “about nibbling at the edges of the president’s authority.”

“We’re talking about ignoring the entirety of the United States Constitution,” Platkin said.

Attorneys general from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia plan to file the lawsuit.

Appropriators protest

The top Democrats on the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations committees sent a letter to acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, expressing alarm about how the stop in payments would affect people throughout the country and challenging the legality of the executive branch trying to overrule the legislative branch on spending decisions.

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote that the scope of the halt in funding, which was approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis, “is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country.”

“While we may have strong policy disagreements, we should all be united in upholding our nation’s laws and the Constitution,” DeLauro and Murray wrote.

“We will be relentless in our work with members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to protect Congress’s power of the purse,” they added. “The law is the law — and we demand you in your role as Acting OMB Director reverse course to ensure requirements enacted into law are faithfully met and the nation’s spending laws are implemented as intended.”

Power of the purse lies with Congress

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the so-called “power of the purse” by granting it the authority to approve federal spending. 

Congress has passed several laws regarding that constitutional authority, including the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president cannot simply refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated.

Trump’s pick for OMB Director, Russ Vought, has repeatedly called that law unconstitutional and said he believes the president does have the authority to simply ignore sections of spending law that have been passed by Congress and signed into law.

The Senate has yet to confirm Vought to the role of White House budget director, but is likely to do so in the weeks ahead.

Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, posted on social media that the OMB memo’s “vague and contradictory language makes it hard to know if funding is imperiled for public schools, community health centers, state and local law enforcement, veterans’ housing, health care through Medicaid, public services on tribal lands, etc.”

“This confusion & apparent withholding of funding isn’t a political game – real estate, local, & tribal governments, school districts, nonprofits, & private charities delivering services we all depend on, funded with taxpayer dollars, can’t function without resources and clarity,” Parrott wrote. “Congress has enacted legislation that requires the Executive Branch to fund public services, and the Trump Administration seems determined to subvert Congress, its hand-waving about following the law notwithstanding.”

Parrott worked at OMB as associate director of the Education, Income Maintenance, and Labor Division during then-President Barack Obama’s second term.

Jenny Young, vice president of communications and chief of staff at Meals on Wheels America, said the OMB memo “could presumably halt service to millions of vulnerable seniors who have no other means of purchasing or preparing meals.”

“And the lack of clarity and uncertainty right now is creating chaos for local Meals on Wheels providers not knowing whether they’re going to be reimbursed for meals served today, tomorrow, who knows how long this could go on,” Young said. “Which unfortunately means seniors may panic not knowing where their next meals will come from. This adds insult to injury as these programs are already underfunded to begin with. Largely speaking, local providers don’t have the ability to absorb a blow like this, especially if it persists for any extended period of time.”

Young said the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which provides some of Meals on Wheels funding, is a grant program administered by the Administration on Aging.

Members of Congress react

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was talking with staff at OMB to “try to get more information on how this works.”

Graham said he wouldn’t delay a committee vote Thursday to send Vought’s nomination to the Senate floor.

“We need more information about this, but we also need a guy in charge,” Graham said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a senior appropriator and chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said during a brief interview that leadership at the VA was supposed to talk with OMB officials on Tuesday afternoon to figure out how exactly they were supposed to carry out the spending freeze for certain grant and loan programs.

“We’re trying to get additional information about what it means on grants,” Moran said. “I just came from a veterans’ hearing where that was the topic of conversation. And my understanding is the VA leadership is meeting with OMB to learn the details, and then I’ll have more of a response.”

Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed similar remarks that she wanted more information on how much the memo impacted those federal programs.

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven, a senior appropriator, said he isn’t too concerned about the temporary pause to federal grant and loan programs.

“He’s taking a look at a lot of the spending as he should; reviewing it, finding out what makes sense and what doesn’t,” Hoeven said. “Just because it gets paused doesn’t mean it won’t get funded. And hopefully the ones that are funded are funded in a better way, more in line with our priorities.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said she wasn’t worried about the impact of the temporary pause to grants and loans at the Defense Department and VA.

“I think they will take a look at it, they will release the funds as they find it necessary,” Ernst said. “So I think there’s a big flurry in the press right now, but I think that President Trump is doing the right thing by scrutinizing our spending.”

‘Take a deep breath’

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, an advocate for federal disaster aid, said he was skeptical that the freeze would immediately impact people in need of disaster relief.

“I can’t imagine that the president would knowingly cut off housing assistance for people displaced from their homes,” he said. “We need to get to the facts versus the fear.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during a press conference that he expected additional information from the Trump administration about the pause.

“They’re providing additional clarity and guidance on that, and hopefully they will further clarify what exactly will be impacted,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s unusual for an administration to pause.”

Sen. James Risch of Idaho added: “This is a work in progress. Everybody take a deep breath, stay calm. Every one of these programs is gonna be looked at.”

Ariana Figueroa, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

The Washington State Standard originally published this story on Jan. 28, 2025.