Tampa Bay leaders see anxiety, confusion over White House funding pause
From college campuses to city halls to nonprofit offices, leaders across Tampa Bay were left unsettled by the possibility of losing billions in federal funding Wednesday evening after a frenetic 48 hours of confusing and contradictory messaging from Washington D.C.
The White House budget office on Monday ordered a pause on all grants and loans disbursed by the federal government, calling in a memo for federal agencies to perform a 'comprehensive analysis' to ensure that grant and loan-funded programs were aimed at diversity, equity, inclusion and 'woke gender ideology.'
Until that review was complete, federal agencies were instructed to 'temporarily pause' all financial assistance.
The White House rescinded the order Wednesday after a D.C. court temporarily blocked the move. But not before a swath of organizations that rely on federal funding had to spend a couple of days wondering what might happen if they lost it.
'We are breathing a sigh of relief this afternoon,' said Clara Reynolds, president and CEO of Crisis Center of Tampa Bay whose federally funded services range from sexual assault counseling to support groups for veterans and first responders.
The week's chaotic messaging highlights how much federal spending touches every corner of the state, and how tenuous that funding now feels for those who rely on it.
Roughly 40% of Florida's state revenue in 2022 came from federal funds, according to Pew Charitable Trusts, including Medicaid, income security and COVID-19 aid. The programs and agencies up for review, outlined in a 52-page memo from the White House Tuesday, touch on issues ranging from early childhood learning to cancer research.
As soon as the executive order was announced, the phones started ringing at Metro Inclusive Health, a Tampa Bay health services nonprofit that specializes in HIV care.
'It's of grave concern to patients and clients who have been calling frightened and confused,' spokesperson Brian Bailey said. 'Staff are equally concerned about their patients, including the most vulnerable, as well as their own jobs should funds for critical programs be cut.'
The memo's lack of clear details and agencies' confused responses indicated that the decision had been made without input from stakeholders, said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education.
'(It's) the exact opposite you'd hope to see in terms of decision making,' Fansmith told an online panel of higher education experts Tuesday. 'Agencies themselves are catching up to what the (budget office) memo is saying'
On Tuesday night, administrators at Gulf Coast Jewish Family and Community Services received an email from their parent organization directing staff to cease all services to newly arrived refugees.
Although the budget office's directive noted that it would not halt support to individuals and that immigration efforts would be on those engaged in criminal acts, the federal government's 'confusing language' had put the organization's funding at risk, said president and CEO Sandra Braham.
'Refugees are not undocumented immigrants (and) did not enter the United States illegally,' President and CEO Sandra Braham wrote in an email to the Tampa Bay Times.
'This cease work order is not only inhumane, but it also puts the onus on nonprofits that are already underfunded while doing the work of our state and federal governments,' Braham wrote.
The confusion highlighted just how deeply federal funds reach into Floridians' daily lives.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services alone approved more than $27 billion in funding in Florida. That includes nearly $58 million for research at Tampa's Moffitt Cancer Center and $1.7 million for health centers across Pinellas County, according to federal data.
Alayne Unterberger, executive director of the Tampa-based Florida Institute for Community Studies, was worried Wednesday that her organization could lose access to a key federal grant.
The nonprofit, which provides youth mental health training, was approved last year for a 4-year, $125,000 annual Health and Human Services grant. In her application, she wrote about accommodating Spanish speakers and people with disabilities.
The Trump administration's specific target on government programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion made Unterberger wary.
'When you write these federal grants, you have to have a plan for equity and accommodating disabilities,' Unterberger said. 'And that is not DEI. That is a good program.'
The freeze may be on hold for now, but more disruptions may be coming. On Monday, the National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation canceled workshops to review grants for the rest of the week to ensure funding decisions meet with new federal guidelines.
And Wednesday afternoon, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt posted on X that President Donald Trump's executive orders on federal funding' remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.'
For now, local leaders have adopted a 'wait and see' approach to the coming days.
'We are not currently planning anything in reaction to this because we are under the impression that it has been rescinded,' Hillsborough County spokesperson Chris Wilkerson Wednesday evening.
St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch said in a statement that he understood the uncertainty was 'frustrating for our community,' but that city leaders were 'working across all levels of government to gain clarity on any presidential executive orders.'
Until then?
'Right now, it's business as usual,' said Tampa Mayor Jane Castor.
Times staff writers Juan Carlos Chavez, Jack Evans, Divya Kumar, Colleen Wright, Colbi Edmonds, Christopher O'Donnell, Shauna Muckle and Jeffrey S. Solochek contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Medicaid cuts could devastate hundreds of rural hospitals in GOP states, Democrats say
Cuts to federal spending on Medicaid could affect hundreds of rural hospitals in many states that have elected Republican senators and voted for President Trump, Senate Democrats warned Thursday, citing a list they commissioned of rural hospitals in financial distress. "If Republicans plan to pass drastic cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act, communities should know exactly what they stand to lose," Sen. Ed Markey, the top Democrat in the Senate's health committee, said in a statement. The warning from Senate Democrats, outlined in a letter sent to President Trump and Republican congressional leaders, comes as senators are now wrestling with the budget package that Mr. Trump dubbed the "big, beautiful bill," which narrowly passed the House last month. Budget analysts say a slew of changes that the House bill made to Medicaid provisions — which backers argue would target "excesses and abuses" in the program — could add up to reduced federal Medicaid spending by more than $800 billion over the next decade, resulting in 7.8 million more uninsured people. The American Hospital Association has warned Medicaid cuts being considered by Congress "could have a devastating impact on rural hospitals," which often face larger shares of patients without health insurance. "Rural hospitals serve as critical — and sometimes the sole — source of care for rural communities," the hospital lobbying group says. Democrats cited a list of at-risk rural hospitals that the University of North Carolina's Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research compiled at their request. "If your party moves ahead with these drastic health care cuts that will cut millions of people off their health insurance coverage, rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients. In turn, rural hospitals will face deeper financial strain," the Democrats' letter states. The center analyzed data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to compile a list of rural hospitals at the highest risk of financial distress, broken down by state and congressional district. "Republican health care cuts would be felt by rural hospitals across the country. In Louisiana, 32 rural hospitals — or a majority of rural hospitals in the state — are serving a high concentration of Medicaid patients. A total of 33 hospitals are at risk based on serving a high share of Medicaid patients, experiencing negative total margins, or both," Democrats wrote. Louisiana is the home state of Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate health panel. The letter also itemized rural hospitals at risk in Alaska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama and Tennessee. "Substantial cuts to Medicaid or Medicare payments could increase the number of unprofitable rural hospitals and elevate their risk of financial distress. In response, hospitals may be forced to reduce service lines, convert to a different type of healthcare facility, or close altogether," wrote University of North Carolina researchers Mark Holmes, George Pink and Tyler Malone in their responses to the Democrats.
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Global Gender Gap Shrinks But Parity Is Still More Than A Century Away
The gender gap around the world is closing at its fastest pace since before the Covid-19 pandemic. But even at the current rate of progress, full parity is well over a hundred years away, new research reveals. According to the 19th edition of the World Economic Forum's annual Global Gender Gap Report, the gap across 148 economies around the world now stands at 68.8% when examining factors including economic opportunities, education, health, and political leadership. When looking at the 145 economies that were examined both this year and last, the gender gap contracted by 0.3 percentage points in 2025—from 68.4% in 2024. That marked the fastest annual contraction since before Covid-19 spread around the world in 2020, stalling or even revering progress on many metrics, such as women's labor force participation, in some countries. Despite this uptick, however, and based on the WEF's calculations, it will still take 123 years to reach full parity in gender globally, and that's assuming today's pace of progress doesn't slacken. 'The progress made in this edition was driven primarily by significant strides in political empowerment and economic participation, while educational attainment and health and survival maintained near-parity levels above 95%,' the authors of the report write. They add, however, that even though women today represent 41.2% of the global paid workforce, 'a stark leadership gap persists with women holding only 28.8% of top leadership positions.' The 2025 report showed that, while no economy has yet achieved full gender parity, some are getting closer. For a 16th consecutive year, for example, Iceland led the index with the smallest gender gap of just 92.6%. Indeed, Iceland is the only economy to have closed more than 90% of its gender gap. The country's northern European neighbors—Finland, Norway and Sweden—have all closed more than 80% of their gap and have also consistently ranked in the top 10 in every edition of the report since 2006. Other countries in this year's top 10 include the United Kingdom, the Republic of Moldova, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand and Namibia. Overall, the authors of the report note that there's a slight correlation between the current income levels of the countries covered and their gender gaps, with richer economies being marginally more gender equal. At the aggregate level, the authors note, economies considered to be high-income have closed 74.3% of their gender gap, which is slightly more than the averages observed across lower income countries. The authors emphasize, however, that this correlation 'is low and does not indicate causation.' In other words, being a high-income nation does not automatically mean that gender gaps are smaller.
Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
Medicaid Work Requirements Will Hamper Economic Growth
History and Data Show Work Requirements Don't Work WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 10: U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) speaks to the press ... More during his weekly press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. Jeffries spoke about how the Republican budget cuts would affect Medicaid and food assistance. (Photo by) As Congress debates proposals to add work requirements to Medicaid and increase them on SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) in the budget bill that passed the House in May and is now in the hands of the Senate, it is crucial to set aside partisan talking points and focus on what the data and economic modeling show. While the intention behind these proposals — to encourage employment and fiscal responsibility — may sound reasonable, the reality is that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP are not only ineffective at increasing employment, but also pose serious risks to state economies and budgets. Recent analyses from the Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health paint a sobering picture. If work requirements are imposed nationwide, between 4.6 million and 5.2 million adults could lose Medicaid coverage in 2026 alone. This loss is not primarily due to an unwillingness to work, but rather to administrative hurdles — complex paperwork and reporting requirements that often trip up even those who are working or should be exempt. The consequences extend far beyond individual coverage losses. States stand to lose between $33 billion and $46 billion in federal Medicaid funding in the first year, and up to half a trillion dollars over a decade. This funding loss would ripple through local economies, resulting in an estimated reduction of $43 billion to $59 billion in economic activity in 2026 and the loss of 322,000 to 449,000 jobs. State and local tax revenues would also decline by up to $4.4 billion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has concluded that Medicaid work requirements would have a 'negligible effect on employment status or hours worked by people who would be subject to the work requirements.' Why? Because most adults on Medicaid are already working, caring for family, attending school, or are unable to work due to health reasons. In fact, the majority of adults with Medicaid are already working, and most of the rest had valid reasons for not being in the workforce, such as a disability or being in school. Recent history offers us useful lessons — in 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements on Medicaid recipients. Multiple studies have found this had no effect on employment and only resulted in a loss of health coverage for 18,000 people. The negative impact led to the work requirement being stopped in 2019. Our national leaders should be learning from Arkansas' mistake: we need effective government policies, not solutions in search of a problem. Work requirements also fail to address the real barriers to employment — such as lack of stable schedules and benefits, transportation, or affordable childcare. Instead, they create new bureaucratic obstacles that disproportionately affect those already struggling, without actually moving more people into the workforce. In addition to Medicaid work requirements, the bill also proposes increasing work requirements on SNAP so that older beneficiaries and those with young children are subjected to them. Regardless of political affiliation, fiscal responsibility and economic growth should be shared goals. But the evidence shows that additional work requirements tacked onto the social safety net would undermine both. States would face significant budget shortfalls as federal funding shrinks, leading to cuts in healthcare services, job losses and potential tax increases to offset the loss of federal investment. These are outcomes that should concern lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Moreover, while polls show some support for work requirements in theory, there is broad, bipartisan opposition to major cuts in Medicaid funding once the real-world implications become clear. If the goal is to increase employment and strengthen our economy, the focus should be on removing barriers to work — not erecting new ones. Investments in job training, childcare and better wages are strategies that would actually help people find and keep jobs. Medicaid itself supports employment by providing a safety net for workers in low-wage or unstable jobs who lack employer-sponsored insurance. As we consider changes to our nation's safety net, let's ground our decisions in evidence and shared economic interests. Work requirements for Medicaid may sound appealing, but the data show they are a costly mistake—one our economy cannot afford.
