��è��Ƶ

Contact                   

Maria Duvuvuei

duvuvueim@lsc.gov         

Contact Us                  

WASHINGTON, D.C.– A judge, legal aid director and legal aid client come together to discuss the potential impact of the White House’s proposal to eliminate the ��è��Ƶ (��è��Ƶ) on the latest episode of , released today. ��è��Ƶ President Ron Flagg hosts the conversation with Senior Judge of the District Court of Texas Lora Livingston; Executive Director of Maine’s Pine Tree Legal Assistance (PTLA) Tom Fritzsche; and Athena Gough, a former client of Community Legal Aid in Ohio who now serves on its Board. 

On May 30, the Trump Administration announced its proposed federal budget for 2026, calling for the elimination of ��è��Ƶ. In light of this, Flagg guides the guests through a conversation about the tangible impacts of defunding civil legal services, explaining how the impact will be felt at every level. 

Judge Livingston reflects on what losing ��è��Ƶ would mean for our country and everyday Americans’ access to justice. 

“I think it would be a devastating loss to our country and to the people that need legal assistance in our country,” Judge Livingston says. “Federal funding for legal services is an investment in the rule of law. It's an investment in our constitution. It's an investment to our fidelity, to the rule of law, to our democracy and to our citizens—the day-to-day people who benefit from legal services—they benefit from the promise of justice for all that we've made as a society.” 

Gough shares her struggles that led her to legal aid. She had a protection order against her then-husband due to domestic violence, which she says he continually violated. Despite fearing retaliation, she reported the violations to the police, and he was arrested. Gough decided that she would file for divorce in hopes that this would deter him from contacting her again but found out that filing would cost $300 that she did not have. She left the courthouse feeling “discouraged and a little bit scared.”

Then, Gough remembered hearing about Community Legal Aid and found out that she was eligible for legal assistance. Legal Aid took her case, and attorneys guided her through each step of the process from her divorce to renewing her protection order, which Ohio requires survivors of domestic violence to do every five years. 

“My attorney was kind and strong and she made me feel less afraid every step of the way. It's pretty terrifying to go into the courts on your own without the knowledge of what you need to say and what you need to do to obtain a better outcome,” says Gough. “The divorce process took about 18 months because my ex was a bit difficult to deal with, and [by] myself, I never would've been able to afford to keep an attorney on retainer while this process played out.” 

Considering that legal aid organizations like the one that helped her are already turning away clients for lack of resources and will have even fewer resources if Congress accepts the Administration’s proposal to eliminate ��è��Ƶ, Gough worries about other clients in need. 

“I honestly can't imagine what I would've done if I had called in for assistance and legal aid said, ‘well, normally we would be able to help someone in your position, but due to funding cuts, we can't,’ and I worry about anybody else that would be calling in now for a situation like mine and that they're getting turned away because there's not enough funding to help them,” she says. 

In addition to access to justice concerns, Judge Livingston also notes how increasing the number of unrepresented litigants if ��è��Ƶ is eliminated would play out in the courts. 

“The difficulty from the court's perspective in part is that the courts can only go so far to provide information to people—we can't provide advice to people, and so even though we might be able to understand what someone is trying to accomplish…the court system can't become advocates,” she says. “So, we simply sit back and often times watch people drown in a sea of legal complexity and we can't really throw them much of a lifeline. That is not what justice looks like.”

Fritzsche describes how the loss of ��è��Ƶ funding would impact his organization’s ability to represent and serve Mainers. ��è��Ƶ funding makes up 25% of PTLA’s total budget. Currently, there are 18,000 people in the households that PTLA can serve each year, through direct representation or advice. Fritzsche says that due to limited resources for legal aid now, his organization already has to turn away many people who “need and deserve legal services.” 

“In a scenario with no ��è��Ƶ funding, that means we would turn away at least an additional 4,000 - 5,000 people who need help, and that means more folks who would face homelessness, who would be unable to escape abusive relationships or dangerous situations, who would be saddled with burdensome and unlawful debt, and who generally would find themselves with nowhere to turn during some of the hardest and worst and scariest days of their lives,” says Fritzsche. 

“And I think the ripple effect, in addition to the human impact on our clients whom we couldn't serve, extends even further beyond that because the ��è��Ƶ's funding for Pine Tree Legal Assistance for over 50 years now has been an anchor and helped us build stable and effective infrastructure that enables us to make the most efficient and impactful use in direct services to clients of other grant programs, as well,” he continues. 

Talk Justice episodes are  and on Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts. The podcast is sponsored by ��è��Ƶ’s Leaders Council. Further information about the show is available on the