The Spy is sure that more than a few Spy readers blinked their eyes the other day when they read the headline that the Mid-Shore Community Foundation (MSCF) had committed almost $4 million to support the building of the new UM Shore Regional Health hospital project. It was inevitable that the region’s largest community foundation would make a meaningful donation to this much-needed facility, but the Spy wanted to know how the MSCF could make such a significant commitment when historically their largest “stretch” grants were in the very low six figures.

Of course, we turned to Buck Duncan, president of MSCF, to answer that question, and it proved to be a lot more complicated than simply writing a check. The more one understands how Buck and his board assembled this commitment, the more one can appreciate the power and value of a community foundation, as well as the hundreds of its donors, who made such a meaningful gift possible.

And only Buck can make all of this such a good story to tell.

This video is approximately seven minutes in length. For more information about the Mid-Shore Community Foundation, please go here.

 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security over the weekend took down a public list of cities and jurisdictions that the Trump administration labeled as “sanctuary” cities, after a sharp rebuke from a group representing 3,000 sheriffs and local law enforcement.

On Saturday, National Sheriffs’ Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue slammed the list as an “unnecessary erosion of unity and collaboration with law enforcement.”

“The completion and publication of this list has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration,” Donahue said.

DHS published the list Thursday and it was unavailable by Sunday. It’s unclear when it was removed, but Internet archives indicate that Saturday was the last time the list was still active.

In a statement, DHS did not answer questions as to why the list was removed.

“As we have previously stated, the list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly,” according to a DHS spokesperson. “Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Fox News Sunday did not acknowledge that the list was taken down, but said some localities had “pushed back.”

“They think because they don’t have one law or another on the books that they don’t qualify, but they do qualify,” Noem said. “They are giving sanctuary to criminals.”

Local law enforcement aids in immigration enforcement by holding immigrants in local jails until federal immigration officials can arrive.

The creation of the list stems from Donald Trump’s executive order in April that required DHS to produce a list of cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials in enforcement matters, in order to strip federal funding from those local governments.

Those jurisdictions are often dubbed “sanctuary cities,” but immigration enforcement still occurs in the city — there’s just no coordination between the local government and the federal government.

The jurisdictions are often a target for the Trump administration and Republicans, who support the President Donald Trump campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.

Congressional Republicans in March grilled mayors from Boston, Chicago and Denver, on their cities’ immigration policies during a six-hour hearing before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Local officials were puzzled by the list.

One law enforcement association in North Dakota questioned why several counties — Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope — were listed as sanctuary jurisdictions because those areas cooperate with federal immigration officials.

In a statement, the North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association said the “methodology and criteria used to compile this list is unknown,” and there has been no communication from DHS “on how to rectify this finding.”

“The elected Sheriffs of these counties take strong objection with language in this release characterizing them as ‘deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,’” according to NDSDA.

“The North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association is working to gather more information regarding the lack of transparency and reasoning as to why the Department of Homeland Security did not fact check prior to incorrectly naming these North Dakota counties.”

Local advocacy groups also noted the problems with the DHS list.

“I assume they’ve removed (the list) because they were bombarded with complaints about inaccuracy and how and why these various jurisdictions got on the list,” Steven Brown, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, said in an interview Monday.

According to the Internet Archive website Wayback Machine, the states, as well as the District of Columbia, that were on the list included Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin.

By Ariana Figueroa Christopher Shea and Amy Dalrymple contributed to this story. 

Talbot County has unexpectedly been named one of several Maryland jurisdictions designated as a “sanctuary” by the Trump administration—a move that could put federal funding at risk and place the county in the middle of a national immigration debate.

The announcement came Thursday as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to pressure local governments into supporting federal immigration enforcement. The list includes Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Queen Anne’s County, and the cities of Annapolis, Rockville, and Takoma Park, among others.

The designation follows an executive order directing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to identify localities that, in the administration’s view, do not fully cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The purpose is to cut off federal funds to jurisdictions that limit their involvement in immigration enforcement.

Talbot County’s inclusion raises questions. The county has not adopted any formal policy that restricts cooperation with ICE, and immigration issues have rarely been a topic of discussion in local government or public debate. Still, the Trump administration appears to be interpreting “non-cooperation” broadly.

The designation carries potential consequences. Talbot, like many rural counties, relies on federal grants for programs ranging from public safety and infrastructure to housing and health services. Even the threat of losing those funds could complicate budget planning and long-term community investments.

Maryland lost its treasured “triple triple-A” bond rating Wednesday, when a key bond-rating agency downgraded its assessment of the state’s creditworthiness to Aa1.

The move by Moody’s ends more than three decades in which Maryland held the highest bond rating from the three rating agencies: Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch.

Moody’s had given Maryland an Aaa rating every year since 1973 — until Wednesday. The rating agency also downgraded half a dozen other state borrowing programs in its report.

In its reasoning for the downgrade, Moody’s said Maryland continues to have a “wealthy and diverse economy,” solid financial planning and that officials had recently addressed budget problems “through a combination of tax increases and restraints on expenditures.” But those were not enough to offset concerns about looming financial challenges, the report said.

“The downgrade was driven by economic and financial underperformance compared to Aaa-rated states, which is expected to continue given the state’s heightened vulnerability to shifting federal policies and employment, and its elevated fixed costs,” Moody’s wrote in its report.

Prior to Wednesday’s announcement, Maryland was one of 14 states to have the highest rating from the three major agencies — Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poors.

In a forceful response to the downgrade, the state’s top five Democrats — Gov. Wes Moore, Senate President Bill Ferguson (Baltimore City), House Speaker Adrienne Jones (Baltimore County), Comptroller Brook Lierman and Treasurer Dereck Davis — laid the blame on the White House doorstep of Republican President Donald Trump

“To put it bluntly, this is a Trump downgrade. Over the last one hundred days, the federal administration’s decisions have wreaked havoc on the entire region, including Maryland,” their joint statement said.

“Thousands of federal workers are losing their jobs. Actual and proposed cuts to everything from health care to education will continue to exact an incalculable toll on Maryland and states across the country,” the statement said.

But Maryland Republicans said warnings about the state’s financial problems came well before Trump, and said the downgrade should be a signal that the state cannot tax its way out of problems anymore.

“This is Moody’s saying that Maryland’s propensity to raise taxes is not enough any more,” Senate Minority Leader Stephen S. Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore) said Wednesday.

“People can move. They can work in other states,” he said. “They (Moody’s) are looking at the potential for economic growth in the state and it’s not enough.”

House Minority Leader Jason C. Buckel (R-Allegany) pushed back on the suggestion that it’s “a Trump downgrade.” He pointed to warnings from fiscal analysts in November and again in January of billions in structural budget gaps driven by higher spending on Medicaid, child care subsidies and, in later years, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education reforms.

Last year, Moody’s itself cited “escalating expenditures in education and healthcare, combined with elevated retirement benefit liabilities” when it reaffirmed the state’s Aaa bond rating, but downgraded the outlook from stable to negative. Wednesday’s downgrade “should come as no surprise to anyone” who follows the state budget, Buckel said.

“This was well before President Trump’s reelection and before any federal retrenchment. Foisting the blame anywhere but at the feet of the excessive spending championed by Maryland’s Democratic party is, at best, disingenuous,” Buckel said in a statement.

Decades without a downgrade

Besides Moody’s, which gave Maryland an Aaa rating in 1973, Standard & Poor’s first rated Maryland Aaa in 1961 and Fitch has given it that ranking since 1993.

Maryland maintained its Aaa rating from Moody’s through five recessions — including the Great Recession — the 2013 federal budget sequestration, and the COVID-19 pandemic. But Trump’s approach in his first 100 days, focused on slashing federal spending and employment and moving to wipe out entire programs or agencies, has rattled that confidence.

A triple-A rating means the state pays the lowest rates when it sells bonds to fund public projects. The downgrade means the state — and taxpayers — could  pay more in interest on the money the state borrows.

The next bond sale is scheduled for June 11.

It is not yet clear if the shift by one agency will increase the state’s interest rate or decrease or eliminate bond premiums — fees bond buyers pay the state in return for higher interest rates and a guarantee that the bonds will not be called for specific time periods. Premiums can be used to offset the higher rates the state pays, but that upfront cash has been used in the past for other purposes.

The downgrade is a blow to Democrats who for years have pointed to the state’s high credit ratings as a symbol of strong fiscal management. For others, it was seen as a sign the rating agencies were confident in a willingness among Maryland’s leaders — mostly Democrats — to raise taxes to pay its debts.

The rating downgrade was not wholly unexpected.

The warnings were there

When Moody’s last year reaffirmed the state’s AAA rating but lowered the state’s outlook from stable to negative, it cited concerns about looming structural deficits driven by programs like the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

The 2024 report noted the state’s high costs but relatively stable personal income tax base that was bolstered by federal employment and its proximity to the District of Columbia.

But Moody’s expressed concerns then about Maryland’s pension liabilities, and “above average debt burden.” The agency also worried about Maryland’s “vulnerability to swings in federal spending.”

Last year’s rating and negative outlook incorporated the “difficulties Maryland will face to achieve balanced financial operations in coming years without sacrificing service delivery goals or increasing the tax burden on individual and corporate taxpayers.”

Moody’s analysts warned then that a downgrade could come if there was further economic deterioration that resulted “in deficits, fund transfers and reserve draws.” Analysts also raised concerns about an “insufficient plan” to quickly replenish reserve funds or reach a structural budget balance.

Cuts to federal jobs or the federal government’s “role in the state’s economy” might also cause a downgrade, Moody’s wrote in its 2024 report.

Administration officials earlier this year expressed concern about a potential downgrade, but thought that solving the state’s immediate financial concerns — more than $3 billion in structural deficits in fiscal 2026, and a nearly equal amount the following year — would satisfy the rating agency and protect Maryland’s credit rating.

External pressures come to bear

But as lawmakers and administration officials were negotiating cuts, cost shifts and $1.6 billion in taxes and fees, Moody’s issued another warning report. The March report listed Maryland as the state at highest risk for economic problems as the Trump administration slashed agency budgets and jobs.

The budget finalized by lawmakers reduced general fund spending — the portion paid directly by Maryland taxpayers — by $400 million, despite overall growth of about 1% when all funding sources are included.

That included more than $1 billion in combined one-time general fund actions and another $800 million in transfers from various accounts to the general fund budget, in addition to tax and fee increases.

The spending plan also eased the burden on the state by shifting some costs, including teacher pensions and costs for property tax assessments, to local governments.

The result was the elimination of the projected structural deficits for fiscal 2026 and 2027.

But those deficits return the following year and grow to more than $3 billion by 2030, according to projections included in a presentation to the bond rating agencies. All of those deficits are related to expected education spending that is part of the Blueprint plan.

Officials told the rating agencies that 70% of the costs could be controlled by the state.

Soon after the 2025 session ended, Moody’s issued a report downgrading the credit rating of the District of Columbia from AAA to Aa1. The firm cited impacts from federal workforce reductions as well as weakening demand for commercial real estate.

“I think a lot of us looked at that report and thought you could replace DC with Maryland because Maryland is going through all the same challenges,” said David Turner, a Moore spokesperson.

Presenting a united front

Last week, the state hosted all three bond rating agencies as part of its annual reviews ahead of the state’s June bond sale. Only Moody’s came to Maryland for face-to-face meetings; Fitch and Standard & Poor’s representatives met with state officials virtually.

Typically, those meetings include the state treasurer, comptroller, budget secretary, the director of the Bureau of Revenue Estimates and legislative analysts. But Moore, Ferguson, Jones took the rare step of meeting in person with Moody’s last Tuesday. The three also made brief comments as part of a united front in hopes of retaining the highest credit rating.

The three did not attend meetings with the other two firms. A spokesman for the governor acknowledged the concerns about a bond rating hit from Moody’s.

As a part of the presentation to the agencies, officials highlighted actions taken this year on the budget as well as the creation of a committee to track the effects of federal cuts on Maryland.

Layoff notices spiked in February and March, but “normalized in April,” according to a copy of the presentation obtained by Maryland Matters. Monthly federal employment showed no declines; unemployment claims showed no increase.

But state officials also acknowledged the chance of a delayed effect, as pending federal lawsuits over Trump actions are resolved. Another potential effect could come from employees who took buyouts and may apply for unemployment in the fall.

Officials told all three bond-rating agencies that the state was seeing stronger than projected income tax withholding. While initial projections for fiscal 2025 called for 5.5% growth, income tax collections were up 9’% through March, the presentation said.

The joint Democratic statement said leaders met with Moody’s “to discuss our collective work protecting the full faith and credit of the State of Maryland.”

“Together, we turned a deficit into a surplus, gave the middle class tax relief while still raising critical revenue through strategic tax reforms, and reduced spending by over $2 billion – the largest amount that’s been cut in a Maryland state budget in 16 years.” their statement said. “Maryland’s creditworthiness has only been strengthened by our collective work on this budget.”

Fitch and Standard & Poors are expected to release their own ratings in advance of the June bond sale. Officials have not expressed a heightened concern for a downgrade from either of the remaining agencies.

By Bryan P. Sears