Federal Aid (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares38 Views

    USAID Turmoil Threatens Key Aid Supplies to Gaza, Officials Say

    by

    The Trump administration’s efforts to downsize the United States Agency for International Development have endangered the funding for food, tents and medical treatment for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, according to U.S. officials and workers for humanitarian groups funded by the agency.Officials said that the threats to the aid supply chain risked destabilizing the fragile cease-fire agreement between Hamas and Israel, which is contingent on the weekly entry of 4,200 aid and commercial trucks to the territory.With almost all U.S.A.I.D. staff set to be placed on administrative leave by Friday night, there will be only a handful of officials left to sign off on and audit hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding payments to the agency’s partners on the ground in Gaza, raising alarm about how those groups will fund their operations.Of more than 200 officials in the agency’s Mideast team, just 21 will remain in post to manage its entire regional portfolio, according to an internal agency email reviewed by The New York Times. The team that organizes emergency aid supplies in dozens of crisis zones around the world each year, of which Gaza was just one, is down to just 70 staff members from more than 1,000.This is expected to slow or prevent the delivery of food packages to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, as well as tents, mattresses, blankets, hygiene kits and medical treatment, according to three officials and an aid worker. All four people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the news media.While the aid agency does not operate inside Gaza, it has provided roughly $1 billion in aid to international aid groups on the ground since the war began in October 2023 — about a third of the total aid response, according to the United Nations. Hundreds of millions of dollars have yet to be disbursed and now may never be transferred to United Nations agencies and other major aid organizations, three officials said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      California Lawmakers to Propose $25 Million Fund to Litigate Trump Administration

      by

      California lawmakers will convene a special session on Monday to discuss legislation to bolster the state against potential attacks by Donald J. Trump’s administration, including a proposed fund of up to $25 million to underwrite litigation against the federal government, Gov. Gavin Newsom said.President-elect Trump and fellow Republicans signaled during the campaign that he would target signature California policies if he were to win the election, including environmental protections, safeguards for immigrants, civil rights laws and abortion access. Democratic governors across the country have expressed concerns that the second Trump administration will be better prepared and less restrained.California’s Democratic leaders, who have been working for more than a year on contingency plans in the event of a second Trump term, announced within days of the election that they would begin to meet early this month on plans to “Trump-proof” the nation’s most populous state.“We will work with the incoming administration and we want President Trump to succeed in serving all Americans,” Governor Newsom said in a statement on Monday. “But when there is overreach, when lives are threatened, when rights and freedoms are targeted, we will take action.”The fund for litigation aims to pay for legal resources in the state’s Justice Department and regulatory agencies to “challenge illegal federal actions in court and take administrative actions to reduce potential harm,” according to the governor’s office.The proposed $25 million figure is significantly less than the roughly $42 million that California spent on lawsuits against the federal government during the first Trump administration, when the state sued the government more than 120 times. The smaller number — a fraction of the state’s nearly $300 billion annual budget — is a testament to concern over the risk of a financial shortfall. California’s lawmakers struggled to close a deficit this year.The figure is also a nod to the number of fronts on which the state’s Democrats expect the Trump administration to attack California. Mr. Newsom has already vowed to provide rebates to eligible residents who buy electric vehicles if Mr. Trump ends the $7,500 federal E.V. tax credit. The governor also has floated a possible disaster assistance fund to cover victims of floods and wildfires should Mr. Trump withhold federal aid from the disaster-prone state.California also extends health insurance coverage under the state’s version of Medicaid to low-income residents regardless of immigration status, a program that the next administration has also targeted.But the fund’s size also reflects the state’s success during and after Mr. Trump’s first term in protecting Californians against efforts to weaken state regulations, and the likelihood that Democratic states will work together to challenge Mr. Trump. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Visits Florida After Hurricane Milton and Calls for Bipartisan Relief Effort

      by

      The president surveyed damage in Florida and announced $612 million for projects to help the electric grid in areas affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton.During his visit to Florida, President Biden announced $612 million for six Energy Department projects in areas hit by Hurricanes Milton and Helene to improve the region’s electric grid.Eric Lee/The New York TimesStanding in front of one of the many houses wrecked by Hurricane Milton in Florida, President Biden said on Sunday that the storm was devastating for those who lost homes, businesses or relatives, even as he expressed relief that the storm was not as destructive as anticipated.“Thankfully, the storm’s impact was not as cataclysmic as they predicted,” Mr. Biden said in St. Pete Beach. “For some individuals it was cataclysmic. Not only for those individuals who lost their homes, but more importantly those folks who lost their lives, lost family members, lost all their personal belongings. Entire neighborhoods were flooded and millions, millions without power.”Earlier he surveyed the damage from the air: the shredded roof of the Tropicana Field baseball stadium, mounds of debris lining roads and messages spray-painted on furniture piled outside of homes. One message read “Mayor, Gov, Mr Pres, Small Businesses Need Help Too.” Another simply said, “Help us.”“Homeowners have taken a real beating in these back-to back storms,” Mr. Biden said, referring to Milton and Hurricane Helene. “And they’re heartbroken and exhausted, and their expenses are piling up.”Mr. Biden’s visit to the hurricane-ravaged communities in Florida — his second such trip in two weeks — came as he has been managing various crises, including multiple natural disasters, in the final stretch of his presidency. He used the visit to announce $612 million for six Energy Department projects in areas hit by Milton and Helene to improve the region’s electric grid, including nearly $100 million for Florida. On Friday, he declared a major disaster for Florida communities affected by Milton.Mr. Biden also used the moment to call for bipartisan collaboration to help the areas affected pick up the pieces. In a sign of such unity, Mr. Biden was greeted by Representative Anna Paulina Luna and Senator Rick Scott, Florida Republicans who are frequent critics of the Biden administration, after the president finished his helicopter tour.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Threatens to Cut California Wildfire Aid Unless Newsom Delivers More Water

      by

      Donald J. Trump on Friday threatened to withhold federal wildfire aid from California, if elected as president, unless Gov. Gavin Newsom agrees to divert more water to farmers rather than allowing it to flow to the ocean.Mr. Trump, during a news conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., claimed that the state’s devastating wildfires could be prevented by shifts in how California manages its limited water supply. “If he doesn’t sign those papers, we won’t give him money to put out all his fires,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Mr. Newsom authorizing water diversions to farmers. “And if we don’t give him all the money to put out the fires, he’s got problems.” In his remarks, Mr. Trump, the former Republican president, repeatedly called the Democratic governor “Newscum.”Soon after, Governor Newsom posted a clip of Trump’s comments on X and said that every American voter should pay attention.Mr. Trump “just admitted he will block emergency disaster funds to settle political vendettas,” Governor Newsom said. “Today it’s California’s wildfires. Tomorrow it could be hurricane funding for North Carolina or flooding assistance for homeowners in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump doesn’t care about America — he only cares about himself.” We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Where Does Biden’s Student Loan Debt Plan Stand? Here’s What to Know.

      by

      The Supreme Court refused to allow a key part of President Biden’s student debt plan to move forward. Here’s what’s left of it, and who could still benefit.President Biden’s latest effort to wipe out student loan debt for millions of Americans is in jeopardy.The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow a key component of the policy, known as the SAVE plan, to move forward after an emergency application by the Biden administration.Until Republican-led states sued to block the plan over the summer, SAVE had been the main way for borrowers to apply for loan forgiveness. The program allowed people to make payments based on income and family size; some borrowers ended up having their remaining debt canceled altogether.Other elements of Mr. Biden’s loan forgiveness plan remain in effect for now. And over the course of Mr. Biden’s presidency, his administration has canceled about $167 billion in loans for 4.75 million people, or roughly one in 10 federal loan holders.But Wednesday’s decision leaves millions of Americans in limbo.Here is a look at what the ruling means for borrowers and what happens next:Who was eligible for SAVE?Most people with federal undergraduate or graduate loans could apply for forgiveness under SAVE, which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education.But the amount of relief it provided varied depending on factors such as income and family size. More than eight million people enrolled in the program during the roughly 10 months that it was available, and about 400,000 of them got some amount of debt canceled.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Harris y Trump presentan un claro contraste sobre la economía

      by

      Ambos candidatos abogan por ampliar el poder del gobierno para dirigir los resultados económicos, pero en ámbitos muy diferentes.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y el expresidente Donald Trump volaron a Carolina del Norte esta semana para pronunciar lo que se anunciaron como importantes discursos sobre la economía. Ninguno de los dos expuso un plan detallado de políticas: ni Harris, que se centró durante media hora en la vivienda, los comestibles y los medicamentos con receta, ni Trump, que durante 80 minutos desperdigó varias propuestas entre reflexiones en voz alta sobre inmigrantes peligrosos.Pero ambos candidatos, cada uno a su manera, enviaron a los votantes mensajes claros e importantes sobre sus visiones económicas. Cada uno de ellos defendió la visión de un gobierno federal poderoso, uno que utilice su poder para intervenir en los mercados en busca de una economía más fuerte y próspera.Solo discreparon, casi por completo, sobre cuándo y cómo debe utilizarse ese poder.El viernes en Raleigh, Harris empezó a imprimir su propio sello a la economía progresista que ha dominado la política demócrata en la última década. Este pensamiento económico abraza la idea de que el gobierno federal debe actuar con agresividad para fomentar la competencia y corregir las distorsiones en los mercados privados.El planteamiento busca grandes subidas de impuestos a las empresas y a quienes obtienen ingresos altos, para financiar la ayuda a los trabajadores de ingresos bajos y de clase media que luchan por crear riqueza para sí mismos y para sus hijos. Al mismo tiempo, ofrece grandes exenciones fiscales a las empresas que se dedican a lo que Harris y otros progresistas consideran un gran beneficio económico, como la fabricación de tecnologías necesarias para luchar contra el calentamiento global o la construcción de viviendas asequibles.Esta filosofía anima la agenda política que Harris presentó el viernes. Se comprometió a entregar hasta 25.000 dólares en ayudas al pago inicial a cada comprador de primera vivienda durante cuatro años, al tiempo que destinaría 40.000 millones de dólares a empresas constructoras de primeras viviendas. Harris afirmó que reinstauraría de forma permanente el crédito tributario por hijos ampliado que el presidente Biden estableció temporalmente con su ley de estímulo de 2021, al tiempo que ofrecería aún más ayuda a los padres de recién nacidos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris and Trump Offer a Clear Contrast on the Economy

      by

      Both candidates embrace expansions of government power to steer economic outcomes — but in vastly different areas.Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump flew to North Carolina this week to deliver what were billed as major speeches on the economy. Neither laid out a comprehensive policy plan — not Ms. Harris in her half-hour focus on housing, groceries and prescription drugs, nor Mr. Trump in 80 minutes of sprinkling various proposals among musings about dangerous immigrants.But in their own ways, both candidates sent voters clear and important messages about their economic visions. Each embraced a vision of a powerful federal government, using its muscle to intervene in markets in pursuit of a stronger and more prosperous economy.They just disagreed, almost entirely, on when and how that power should be used.In Raleigh on Friday, Ms. Harris began to put her own stamp on the brand of progressive economics that has come to dominate Democratic politics over the last decade. That economic thinking embraces the idea that the federal government must act aggressively to foster competition and correct distortions in private markets.The approach seeks large tax increases on corporations and high earners, to fund assistance for low-income and middle-class workers who are struggling to build wealth for themselves and their children. At the same time, it provides big tax breaks to companies engaged in what Ms. Harris and other progressives see as delivering great economic benefit — like manufacturing technologies needed to fight global warming, or building affordable housing.That philosophy animated the policy agenda that Ms. Harris unveiled on Friday. She pledged to send up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to every first-time home buyer over four years, while directing $40 billion to construction companies that build starter homes. She said she would permanently reinstate an expanded child tax credit that President Biden temporarily established with his 2021 stimulus law, while offering even more assistance to parents of newborns.She called for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries and for new federal enforcement tools to punish companies that unfairly push up food prices. “My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” she said, adding: “We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About Biden’s New Student Debt Relief Plan

      by

      The proposal would affect nearly 30 million people and would target groups that have had hardships in repaying their loans.President Biden announced a large-scale effort to help pay off federal student loans for more than 20 million borrowers.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesPresident Biden released details on Monday of his new student loan debt forgiveness plan for nearly 30 million borrowers.The proposal still needs to be finalized and will have to withstand expected legal challenges, like the ones that doomed Mr. Biden’s first attempt to wipe out student debt on a large scale last year.Biden administration officials said they could begin handing out some of the debt relief — including the canceling of up to $20,000 in interest — as soon as this fall if the new effort moves forward after the required, monthslong comment period.Here’s what is known so far about the program:Who would benefit from the new plan?The plan would reduce payments for 25 million borrowers and erase all debt for more than four million Americans. Altogether, 10 million borrowers would see debt relief of $5,000 or more, officials said.The groups affected include:— Borrowers whose loan balances have ballooned because of interest would have up to $20,000 of their interest balance canceled. The plan would waive the entire interest balance for borrowers considered “low- and middle-income” who are enrolled in the administration’s income-driven repayment plans.The interest forgiveness would be a one-time benefit, but would be the largest relief valve in the plan. The administration estimates that of the 25 million borrowers that could see relief under this waiver, 23 million would see their entire interest balance wiped out.— Borrowers who are eligible for, but have not yet applied for, loan forgiveness under existing programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness or the administration’s new repayment program, called SAVE, would have their debts automatically canceled.— Borrowers with undergraduate student debt who started repaying their loans more than 20 years ago, and graduate students who started paying their debt 25 or more years ago, would have their debts canceled.— Borrowers who enrolled in programs or colleges that lost federal funding because they cheated or defrauded students would have their debts waived. Students who attended institutions or programs that left them with mounds of debt but bleak earning or job prospects would also be eligible for relief.— Borrowers who are experiencing “hardship” paying back their loans because of medical or child care costs would also be eligible for some type of relief. The administration has not yet determined how these borrowers would be identified, but is considering automatic forgiveness for those at risk of defaulting.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Christie, Recalling Sandy, Questions DeSantis’s Views on Hurricane Aid

      by

      Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and a possible 2024 presidential candidate, is raising questions about how a fellow Republican with presidential ambitions plans to handle federal aid after a hurricane.In an interview last week, Mr. Christie noted that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida had sought federal support for cleanup after Hurricane Ian — and could seek additional aid through a congressionally approved package — despite having voted against federal aid for Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and other states when he was a member of Congress in 2013.“I remember at the time his argument was, ‘I won’t vote for this because they’re not paid for,’” Mr. Christie said of Mr. DeSantis’s approach to the funding for the Sandy aid package, which totaled nearly $10 billion. “I think those are symbolic votes and they feel like they can get away with those votes.”He questioned whether Mr. DeSantis would still maintain that a federal aid package must be clearly paid for now that he is managing the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. “I trust as governor that he’ll act like a governor and not like a congressman,” Mr. Christie said. “As a congressperson, you can sit down in Washington and make symbolic votes,” he added. “When you’re governor, you have to look eye to eye to the people who have lost everything.”It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which both Mr. Christie and Mr. DeSantis are candidates in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. Neither has formally announced a candidacy. But Mr. Christie has made clear he is considering one, and Mr. DeSantis has become a focus of some Republican donors who are looking for an alternative to former President Donald J. Trump.A spokesman for Mr. DeSantis declined to respond directly to Mr. Christie’s remarks or to speak with a reporter by phone. He pointed to a list of actions the State of Florida took to address the storm’s impact and remarks the governor made on Fox News.“Nobody has done more to stand up to the administration than me in Florida over the last year and a half, as you know,” Mr. DeSantis said in the Fox News interview about his meeting with President Biden. “But you’ve got to be willing to work together to help folks.”Mr. Christie rejected comparisons between Mr. DeSantis’s meeting Mr. Biden and his own interactions with then-President Barack Obama during the Hurricane Sandy response in 2012, suggesting that the situation then was more intense and politically fraught. At the time, Mr. Obama was an incumbent president running against Mitt Romney, whom Mr. Christie had endorsed. Some Republicans close to Mr. Romney took issue with Mr. Christie for meeting with Mr. Obama, and Mr. Christie responded that he was doing what was right for his state.“It’s a whole different level of attention,” Mr. Christie said. “The level of pressure in 2012 was monumentally more, politically, than the level of pressure today.” More