Skip to content
The Nexus
DossierENTITY

Termination Clause

Coverage of Termination Clause in the Nexus archive.

Earliest in view: Jul 17 · 23:05 UTCMost recent: Jul 22 · 14:13 UTC
Co-mentioned in this coverage
Recent coverage
  • POLITICSJul 22 · 14:13 UTCPENNSYLVANIA CAPITAL-STAR
    Judge agrees with Pennsylvania and other states that White House misused policy to revoke grant funding

    A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration misused a federal provision to revoke billions in approved grant funding due to shifting priorities, violating established guidelines. The decision supports 23 states and the District of Columbia, which argued the revocations were unlawful and threatened critical programs.

  • POLITICSJul 19 · 15:21 UTCFORTUNE
    Trump officials were trying to use a Biden rule to gut billions in grants — a judge just said no

    A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from using a Biden-era grant termination clause to cut billions in funding for programs like crime prevention and scientific research. Twenty-three states sued, arguing the administration misinterpreted the clause to cancel grants, but the judge ruled the administration's approach violated the Spending Clause and lacked textual support.

  • POLITICSJul 17 · 23:05 UTCWPLG LOCAL 10 MIAMI
    Federal judge bars Trump administration from using obscure clause to make huge funding cuts

    A federal judge in Boston ruled the Trump administration cannot use an obscure clause to make billions in funding cuts to programs like crime prevention and scientific research. Twenty-three states sued the administration, arguing the clause was used to cancel grants, while the government sought to dismiss the case, claiming the lawsuit was speculative.

  • POLITICSJul 17 · 23:05 UTCWDIV CLICKONDETROIT
    Federal judge bars Trump administration from using obscure clause to make huge funding cuts

    A federal judge in Boston ruled the Trump administration cannot use an obscure clause to justify billions in funding cuts to grants covering crime prevention, food security, and research. Twenty-three states sued, arguing the clause was used to unlawfully terminate grants, and Judge Indira Talwani agreed, stating the administration's interpretation violated legal requirements for unambiguous spending conditions.