this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
111 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26078 readers
2629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration plans to shift terrorism prevention funding from Democratic-led states toward those led by Republicans, government records show, as it overhauls a $1 billion program created after the 9/11 attacks.

Twelve Democratic-led states are suing to block the cuts, alleging that the Trump administration is trying to punish them for not cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The Trump administration released estimates in late summer for how much money each state should expect to receive from the program. But it later changed the totals, according to notices the states received in late September from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio, which Trump won in 2024, saw the biggest percentage increase among states, according to federal records reviewed by Reuters.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like they need it more tbh. Lot of white nationalist terrorists down there. Whole states of them, in fact

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Yeah. no. These are funds to stop things like 9/11 style attacks. These aren't funds to stop domestic terrorism; and not funding, for example, LGA or JFK airports is going to be a major risk to everyone.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't make sense to fund antiterrorism in areas that he plans to terrorize. Art of the deal.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago

This could be good news for the "Nihilistic Violent Extremists" (better known as trans people) living in blue states.