Постоянный запрет: трое из Совета остаются, пока идёт спор о фонде

On September 2, 2026, El Nuevo Día reported that federal judge María Antongiorgi Jordán, of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, decided to make permanent the injunction she had issued in 2025 to prevent the removal of three members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB). The article, signed by José A. Delgado, places the decision in the case file in which Arthur González, Andrew Biggs, and Betty Rosa challenged President Donald Trump's attempt to remove them. This note from the Borinquen institutional batch is assigned to the calendar of September 3, 2026, as reading for the day after the reported ruling: it does not invent an additional hearing or a signature not described by the primary source.

According to the newspaper, there was no objection from the parties to the temporary injunction becoming permanent. That does not amount to a final judgment on the merits. El Nuevo Día specifies that the removal effort is pending a decision on the merits in the District Court. Permanent injunction ≠ definitive victory on the merits. Removal announced in August 2025 ≠ removal carried out regarding those three members while the injunction remains in effect.

The context reported by the newspaper is institutional, not gossip. After pressure from conservative activists and a group of creditors of the Electric Power Authority (AEE/PREPA), Trump dismissed six of the seven members of the FOMB in August 2025. Three litigated. A follow-up analysis on September 5, by the same correspondent, states that the suspension seems to provide stability to the agency at a time when an agreement on the AEE debt restructuring plan is being discussed. Procedural stability ≠ AEE adjustment plan already confirmed by the Title III court. Agreement in progress ≠ completed confirmation.

For the magazine, the fiscal point is twofold. First, the composition of the Board conditions who can vote on certifications, letters of objection, and reopenings under PROMESA. Second, a narrative of a 'changing of the guard' in Washington does not automatically translate into operational control of the Board in San Juan while a federal court keeps those three members in their positions. Political accusation of inefficiency ≠ judicial finding of cause for removal. Alleged cause ≠ adjudicated cause.

The journalistic primary source, in the retrievable text, does not reproduce the full content of the order nor a list of remedies beyond the permanence of the injunction. That is why this note is limited to what El Nuevo Día attributes to the court: continuation of the injunction made permanent, absence of objection from the parties to that step, and referral of the dismissal effort to a merits phase. No amounts, appeal deadlines, or literal quotes from the judge that the excerpt does not contain are invented.

In the recent Borinquen file, the Board appears as vetoing or conditioning recurring expenses, reschedulings, and emergency reserves. An injunction that establishes, even if only procedurally, who can sign within the FOMB is not a minor issue: it is institutional infrastructure. If in the same September window the Board objects to a joint municipal resolution or a pension increase, the reader needs to know if those members are still legally in office. This note establishes that fact at the start of the fortnight.

Searches on oversightboard.pr.gov for September 2026 did not return a media release dedicated to this order in the same window; the primary source used is, therefore, the piece from El Nuevo Día, the unique URL of the batch. Correspondent reporting ≠ official Board statement. The silence of the institutional page is not interpreted here as the nonexistence of the ruling, but as the absence of its own cited bulletin.

The White House tone does not romanticize the Board or the federal Executive. It states the fact: three names —González, Biggs, Rosa— remain under the umbrella of a permanent federal injunction while the underlying case is litigated. The rest of the country continues to receive letters from Executive Director Robert F. Mujica Jr. about budgets, reserves, and PROMESA. Anyone who wants to understand September’s fiscal fight has to start by knowing who can still sign those letters.

Factual closure for the batch: date of the reported ruling, September 2, 2026; assignment date, September 3; source, El Nuevo Día; topic, politics; cousin, null. The primary does not allocate a dollar nor describe a Board vote for that day. This wording does not invent it either.

This note from Borinquen adheres to the cited primary source: it does not invent figures, does not turn an argument into a ruling, does not treat a budgetary obligation as a disbursement nor an accusation as a conviction. Obligated ≠ disbursed ≠ theft. Interdict ≠ final judgment. Audit with findings ≠ criminal conviction. Request for funds ≠ Board authorization. Signed contract ≠ measured hydrological or electrical outcome. Figures of clients without service are snapshots from a portal or a report, not a census of duration. Where the primary source remains silent on a number, this text also remains silent.