New York City sued President Trump on Friday.
Citing concerns about “illegal conduct,” the Trump administration has reclaimed money to crack down on programs funded by Congress and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The federal government paid $80.5 million to its New York City central bank account on February 4th, but on February 11th it regained its payment without warning. The lawsuit states.
This month, administrative staff announced they have suspended payments after the program fired fire and was spurred by Elon Musk and social media posts.
“As we did here, the legal process does not allow the retrieval of previously approved and paid grants without justification.
“The defendant acted lawlessly, but after the fact he tried to hide this fact with similarities in the next procedure,” he continued.
Oka reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.
As immigrant encounters at the tropical borders increased, Congress approved the Shelter and Services Program (SSP). This allows FEMA to provide grants to nonprofits and local governments that support the influx of migrants released into the country by federal immigration authorities. The grant can cover food, transportation, basic medical care and shelter.
The program is increasingly criticized as Musk appears to be trying to significantly reduce government spending as part of government efficiency. Much of the blame focuses on how New York City houses several immigrants at the Roosevelt Hotel.
The program is also the subject of false claims that it is diverting funds away from people suffering from natural disasters, such as the victims of Hurricane Helen in North Carolina. The SSP is a separate funding from FEMA's major disaster relief fund.
The lawsuit on Friday was filed in federal court in Manhattan by the New York City Legal Department and served as city legal affairs.
The lawsuit pushes back the administration's justification that funds were withdrawn because the grant was not being used in federal law, describing clawback as “money acquisition.”
“Simply put, the “no compliance” letter is an excuse and the defendant's real cover
As they have publicly stated, it is that they withhold the funds forever
The complaint states that funds were allocated and opposed to the purposes awarded, approved and paid.
