States Challenge Trump Order Cutting Library, Business, Labor Aid

A group of 21 state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, has launched a legal battle against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on March 14, 2025. The directive, known as Executive Order No. 14238, mandates the closure or drastic reduction of several federal agencies, including those supporting libraries, minority-owned businesses, and labor dispute resolution. The states argue that this move not only disrupts vital services but also oversteps presidential authority, igniting a fierce debate over the balance of power in Washington.

The lawsuit, filed on April 4, 2025, in Oakland, marks the latest clash between state leaders and the Trump administration. It centers on agencies like the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which collectively channel billions of dollars into communities nationwide. With the order already forcing staff cuts and program terminations, the stakes are high for millions of Americans who depend on these services, from rural library patrons to small business owners.

The executive order’s impact is already rippling across the country. The Institute of Museum and Library Services, a major funder of libraries and museums, has slashed 85% of its staff and halted grant programs that pumped $180 million into states last year. In California alone, this threatens 17,000 library workers and services like summer reading programs and digital access for low-income families. States like Washington face potential layoffs of dozens of library staff, leaving rural areas particularly vulnerable.

Elsewhere, the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports entrepreneurs through 70 business centers nationwide, has been gutted, retaining just five of its over 40 employees. In 2023, it helped create nearly 19,000 jobs, a lifeline now at risk. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, down from 200 staff to fewer than 15, can no longer mediate labor disputes effectively, raising fears of strikes and stalled negotiations in industries critical to the economy.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a claim that the executive order violates the U.S. Constitution. The attorneys general assert that Congress, not the president, holds the power to fund and define federal agencies under the Appropriations Clause and Separation of Powers doctrine. They argue that Trump’s directive to strip these agencies to their bare minimum and block congressionally allocated funds exceeds his authority, clashing with laws like the Impoundment Control Act, which limits executive discretion over spending.

Not everyone sees it that way. Supporters of the administration contend that the order aligns with efforts to streamline government and cut costs, a promise Trump has touted since his first term. They point to past executive actions, like workforce reductions, as evidence of a consistent push for efficiency. Yet legal experts note that courts have historically struck down similar overreaches, citing cases like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in 1952, where presidential action was curbed for bypassing Congress.

This lawsuit fits into a larger pattern of tension between states and the federal government. State attorneys general have long acted as a check on executive power, from challenging Obama-era immigration policies to contesting Trump’s election reforms. Today’s fight echoes historical struggles over federalism, where states have leaned on constitutional principles to protect their interests. The current coalition, spanning New York to Hawaii, underscores a shared alarm over the order’s fallout on local economies and services.

Beyond the courtroom, the stakes are tangible. Library advocates warn of shuttered branches and lost jobs, while business owners fear the collapse of support networks. Labor experts predict a rise in workplace conflicts without federal mediation. Each side digs in, with the administration defending its vision and states vowing to safeguard their communities, setting the stage for a showdown that could reshape how federal agencies operate.

As the case moves forward, its outcome remains uncertain. A victory for the states could restore funding and staff to these agencies, preserving services that trace their roots to acts like the Library Services and Technology Act of 1996 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. A loss, however, might cement the closures, forcing states to scramble for alternatives or watch programs vanish. Either way, the ripple effects will touch millions, from kids in summer reading clubs to workers negotiating contracts.

For now, the nation watches a familiar tug-of-war play out, one that pits executive ambition against legislative intent and state resilience. It’s a messy, human struggle over who gets to decide what keeps America running, and it’s far from over. The resolution will test the boundaries of power and the durability of institutions that, for decades, have quietly held communities together.