Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump Is Seeking Retribution for the Shutdown From New Yorkers

His administration has zeroed in on $18 billion of projects that just so happen to be in Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries’ hometown.

•
Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The shutdown punishment has begun, and it’s aimed at New York City.

Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget announced Wednesday on X that “roughly $18 billion in New York City infrastructure projects have been put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.” That includes funding for the Second Avenue Subway extension and the Gateway Program, a proposed rail tunnel connecting New York City and New Jersey.

While Vought did not refer to the government shutdown specifically in his announcement, the timing is, shall we say, noteworthy, not least because the Democrats’ two top congressional negotiators — Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer — are both from New York. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy later made the link explicit, clarifying in a statement that the real issue with the two projects was a recently released rule — as in, published on Tuesday — “barring race- and sex-based contracting requirements from federal grants.”

There would be a review of the two projects “to determine whether any unconstitutional practices are occurring,” Duffy said, and “until USDOT’s quick administrative review is complete, project reimbursements cannot be processed.” Those reviews “will take more time” thanks to the shutdown, he wrote, reaching his denouement, as “without a budget, the Department has been forced to furlough the civil rights staff responsible for conducting this review.”

The politics behind this gambit are obvious. President Trump has consistently threatened to withhold funding from states, cities, and institutions controlled by or connected to his political opponents.

“I think they very much understand the political dynamics of trying to make an example of New York. They understand where Chuck Schumer lives,” Jackson Moore-Otto, transportation fellow at the Center for Public Enterprise, told me.

The White House wasn’t exactly running away from the political implications of the denial of funding on Wednesday.Vice President J.D. Vance arched a metaphorical eyebrow during a press conference, saying that “I'm sure that Russ is heartbroken about the fact that he is unable to give certain things to certain constituencies.”

Trump has also specifically threatened federal funding for New York City if Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani wins the upcoming mayoral election.

Duffy himself could not have been any more obvious about what he is trying to achieve by slowing down this funding. “This is another unfortunate casualty of radical Democrats’ reckless decision to hold the federal government hostage to give illegal immigrants benefits,” his statement said, while also specifically calling out the two Democratic congressional leaders, saying that the delayed review was “thanks to the Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies [sic] shutdown.”

The legality of this — and its legitimate connection to the shutdown — is not so clear.

“It’s pure political maneuvering if you read the statement closely,” David Super, a law professor at Georgetown, told me. “They’re trying to blame the shutdown for slowing their review, but they’re also effectively saying that they’re considering New York in violation of their standards.”

Super also flagged several constitutional and legal issues with the action.

“The funding allocated through laborious means to the Hudson tunnel and Second Avenue Subway is a property right that entities in New York have,” he told me. “The idea that that can be interfered with because someone wants to do an investigation is a blatant violation of due process.”

While it is possible that purported civil rights violations could lead to funding being blocked, “that would have to be established through procedure, not suspicions that they’re doing something wrong,” Super said.

The new rule Duffy referenced addresses a specific set of programs established under the Small Business Act that are designed to give organizations controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” i.e. “women and members of certain racial and ethnic groups,” a shot at winning government contracts.

The DOT argues that under these programs, “two similarly situated small business owners may face different standards for entering the program, based solely on their race, ethnicity, or sex,” and that the rules and legislation defining them violate equal protection as set out in recent federal court decisions and Trump executive orders.

The rule that Duffy cites as justification for his actions is itself constitutionally suspect, Super said. “The Administrative Procedure Act requires public comment on new rules, subject to limited exceptions,” which this did not have.

The slapdash way the rule has been rolled out could open up the DOT to lawsuits, whether from the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which oversees the New York City subway, or another entity involved with the Hudson tunnel project.

“Courts throughout history have insisted public comment is important,” Super said. The DOT is “violating procedures for issuing this policy and violating due process in the way they apply it.”

Moore-Otto also pointed out that the DOT release makes no specific claim that these projects are violating the rule.

“What they’re saying, it appears to me, is, New York might be doing this thing that we’ve just decided is illegal and we’re going to cut off your funding and it’s going to take longer because our lawyers aren’t being paid,” he said.

And there are broader issues around infrastructure policy at play beyond the obvious political gamesmanship, Moore-Otto pointed out. Duffy’s announcement links the supposedly unconstitutional women and minority contracting practices to the high costs that plague American infrastructure projects, saying they’re a “waste of taxpayer resources.”

But, Moore-Otto argued, what really ails U.S. infrastructure projects are extensive administrative reviews and the start-stop nature of project development.

“I think people would broadly agree the U.S. takes too much time and money to deliver infrastructure projects, and they are trying to invoke this as a pretext,” Moore-Otto said. “What strikes me as noteworthy is that when we look at why the U.S. does, in fact, take so long and use so much money building, while the rest of the world builds faster and cheaper, is that there’s a lot of stopping and starting of these infrastructure projects.”

“Assuming it’s a prolonged delay, it’s going to probably drive up costs — even though they’re saying it is a cost saving measure,” Moore-Otto added. “I think that should not be lost on anybody.”

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

How to Channel Voters’ Anxieties About Data Centers

A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.

After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Consider the Lobstermen Affected by New York’s Empire Wind

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.

  • In late October, a family of lobstermen sued Equinor in federal court claiming the company’s compensatory mitigation program is failing to adequately make up for alleged negative impacts to lobster fishing grounds in the New York Bight. According to the lawsuit, the wind project irreparably hurt fishing in previously trafficked waters. The suit also claims that Empire Wind construction destroyed lobster fishing pots and seeks at least $75,000 in damages as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • The lawsuit is the first I have seen involving someone in aquaculture suing for damages over negative impacts of an already-constructed wind project, and it carries outsized implications as the Trump administration remands without vacatur the construction and operations plans for other offshore wind farms. This case is far from being decided, but that doesn’t matter: It is precisely the kind of complaint that Trump officials are likely to consider as they mull revisions to operational plans.
  • An Equinor spokesman declined to comment on the case, telling me they don’t speak on pending litigation.

2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

Data Center Developers Can’t Pay People Enough to Accept Them

Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.

Donald Trump and data center protesters.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.

Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow