Donald Trump Announces Major Change to 'Frivolous Grants'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to tighten oversight of "frivolous" federal grant funding, a move the White House said would ensure that taxpayer dollars served "the American public" and aligned with the administration's priorities.
Why It Matters
The Trump administration has clashed with a range of institutions and programs over issues such as pro-Palestinian campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza, climate change initiatives, transgender policies, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has terminated numerous contracts and grants, with the Department of Government Efficiency highlighting thousands grant terminations at agencies on its website.
A federal grant is money the U.S. government awards to organizations, institutions or individuals to fund projects that serve a public purpose, such as research, education, health or infrastructure. Grants are not loans and do not require repayment if used as intended.
What To Know
Under the order, future grant award decisions would be subject to heightened scrutiny from both political appointees and subject matter experts.
According to a White House fact sheet published on Thursday, the new review process will verify that each funding opportunity or award "benefits Americans instead of lining grantees' pocketbooks or furthering causes that damage America."
The new rules also permit agencies to terminate grants that fail to meet these standards, including cases where recipients use funds in ways deemed inconsistent with the order's policy objectives.
President Donald Trump speaks with the media at Trump Turnberry golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, on July 28.
President Donald Trump speaks with the media at Trump Turnberry golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, on July 28.
GETTY
Agencies would now be required to simplify grant announcements using plain language and broaden the pool of recipients beyond the universities and nonprofits that have traditionally dominated the process.
The administration said the changes were intended to avoid duplication across agencies and encourage a wider array of "meritorious" applicants.
Past federal grants have funded a wide range of initiatives. The administration cited several examples—including funding for "drag shows in Ecuador"; an "unsafe lab in Wuhan, China"; and the development of "transgender-sexual-education programs."
The administration also cited a 2024 study indicating that more than a quarter of new National Science Foundation grants that year were allocated to DEI initiatives, which it said reflected an ideological bias in funding decisions.
What People Are Saying
A White House fact sheet published on August 7 said: "The Trump Administration has already terminated many wasteful grants. Today's Executive Order helps ensure that bureaucrats can't make the same mistakes in the future."
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said: "President Trump is ensuring that all taxpayer-funded projects benefit Americans, and the entire administration is committed to ending wasteful grants. The days of unaccountable bureaucrats wasting taxpayer dollars on drag shows in Ecuador and other far-left initiatives are over. Today's executive action restores merit-based grantmaking and will save billions for the American people."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
American Military News
9 minutes ago
- American Military News
Pentagon plans ‘reaction force' for ‘domestic civil disturbance: Report
A new report claims that President Donald Trump's administration is developing plans to potentially create a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' of 600 U.S. National Guard troops that could be quickly deployed in the event of civil unrest. According to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post, the Trump administration's 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' plan would involve roughly 600 National Guard troops being ready to deploy at all times. The outlet noted that the National Guard troops would be separated into two groups of 300 troops at military bases in Arizona and Alabama and would be ready to deploy in as little as one hour. The Washington Post reported that while the Pentagon documents have been marked as predecisional, the documents contain comprehensive plans and discussions regarding the potential implications of the creation of a National Guard 'reaction force.' According to The Washington Post, the plans have been compiled by the National Guard and have time stamps from late July and early August. READ MORE: Trump deploys Nat'l Guard in DC, takes federal control of DC police Fox News reported that the Trump administration's reported plans for a National Guard 'reaction force' would require the president to use Title 32, which would allow Trump to bypass normal restrictions regarding the use of the military for domestic purposes and would authorize National Guard troops to use certain law enforcement powers. The Washington Post reported that it is not yet clear whether the plans for the 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' have been reviewed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said, 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The Pentagon's potential plans for a 'reaction force' come after Trump has deployed the National Guard multiple times in response to domestic issues. In response to June's anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles, the president deployed thousands of National Guard members and U.S. Marines to maintain order in the city and provide protection for ICE officials and government property. According to Fox News, Trump also deployed 800 D.C. National Guard troops on Monday as part of his plan to federalize Washington, D.C., and crack down on surging crime in the nation's capital.
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
The Daily Money: A housing match made in heaven
Good morning! It's Daniel de Visé with your Daily Money. When Cristiana Perez and Nick Porter began house-hunting in New York State in 2021, they were open-minded about their prospects, but they kept getting priced out. Finally, they had an epiphany. Four years later, the couple are the proud owners of a former church. As church attendance declines and the housing market gets tighter, Perez and Porter's path may hold promise. The wealthiest suburbs of America's biggest cities New York's wealthiest suburb is Scarsdale, a name long linked to affluence. Wellesley, the most well-heeled Boston suburb, is known for academia. Fewer Americans might recognize the name of Hinsdale, Chicago's wealthiest suburb. And some non-Texans might struggle to differentiate between University Park and West University Place, the most affluent suburbs, respectively, of metropolitan Dallas and Houston. Here are the wealthiest suburbs of America's largest cities. 📰 More stories you shouldn't miss 📰 📰 A great read 📰 Finally, here's a popular story from earlier this year that you may have missed. Read it! Share it! Americans currently owe roughly $1.8 trillion in student loan debt. Yet, despite rising costs, going to college is a decision that can give you a high return on your investment. The size of that return, however, can depend on your major. About The Daily Money Each weekday, The Daily Money delivers the best consumer and financial news from USA TODAY, breaking down complex events, providing the TLDR version, and explaining how everything from Fed rate changes to bankruptcies impacts you. Daniel de Visé covers personal finance for USA Today.
