California, other states sue Trump administration over clawback of COVID school funds

Los Angeles Times - Apr 10th, 2025

California and a coalition of other states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent the withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding meant for educational recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, argues that rescinding these funds would harm ongoing educational programs such as after-school activities, mental health services, and infrastructure improvements that are crucial for students who continue to face challenges post-pandemic. The Biden administration had extended the deadline for using these funds, but Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced their immediate rescission, citing the end of the pandemic as justification.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York alongside 14 other states and the District of Columbia, claims that McMahon's decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that the move undermines educational opportunities by disregarding the lasting impact of the pandemic on students. The funding originated from the American Rescue Plan Act and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. The legal action highlights tensions between the Trump administration's efforts to reduce federal spending and the ongoing needs of the education sector to address learning loss and mental health issues exacerbated by the pandemic.

Trump Administration Biden Administration Rob Bonta Administrative Procedure Act Linda Mc Mahon California Lawsuit Covid 19 Education Funding

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant account of the legal challenge against the Trump administration's decision to rescind federal funding for educational recovery. It effectively highlights the perspectives of the states involved in the lawsuit and the potential impact on students. However, the article would benefit from a more balanced representation of viewpoints, including responses from the Trump administration and Linda McMahon. The source quality could be improved by incorporating more diverse and independent perspectives. Overall, the article is clear and engaging, with the potential to influence public opinion and drive policy discussions, but it could enhance its impact by addressing the identified gaps in balance and source quality.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the lawsuit filed by California and other states against the Trump administration's decision to rescind federal funding intended for educational recovery post-COVID-19. The claim that the funding was part of the American Rescue Plan Act and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act is accurate. However, there is a potential inaccuracy regarding the involvement of Linda McMahon, as she was not the Education Secretary under Trump. The article also assumes that the action to rescind funds was directed by Trump, which needs verification as it might have been a bureaucratic decision. The article provides a detailed account of the lawsuit's basis, citing the Administrative Procedure Act, but it lacks direct quotes or responses from the Trump administration or Linda McMahon, which could have strengthened its accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the states suing the Trump administration, particularly through quotes from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. It highlights the negative impacts of rescinding the funds on students and the ongoing educational challenges post-pandemic. However, it lacks a balanced representation of the Trump administration's viewpoint, as there are no direct quotes or statements from Linda McMahon or Trump. The article also does not explore any potential benefits or reasons for the administration's decision, which could have provided a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a logical flow of information from the lawsuit's filing to the broader context of educational funding post-pandemic. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. However, the article could improve clarity by clearly distinguishing between the actions of the Trump administration and the Biden administration, as the transition between the two is not explicitly addressed. This could help readers better understand the timeline and context of the funding decisions.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Democratic lawmakers, which are credible sources for their perspectives. However, the absence of comments from the Trump administration or Linda McMahon weakens the source quality. The article also references a letter from McMahon, but without direct quotes or access to the document, it relies on secondary interpretations. The lack of diverse sources or independent experts to provide analysis on the legality and impact of the funding rescission affects the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the lawsuit, including the legislative background of the funding and the ongoing educational challenges. However, it lacks transparency in terms of methodology, as it does not explain how the information was gathered or verified. The article could have benefited from more explicit disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, particularly from the political figures involved. The lack of response from the Trump administration and the absence of direct quotes from Linda McMahon or the Education Department also limit the transparency of the reporting.