Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

How Government Grants Actually Turn Into Cash

Here’s why Trump’s funding freeze created so much chaos.

•
Money disbursement.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A memo issued to federal agencies from the White House budget office on Monday landed like an atom bomb. The Trump administration ordered a pause on the obligation or disbursement of federal financial assistance. In laymen’s terms, that means an immediate freeze on payouts of federal grants — even those already awarded. The news sent a mushroom cloud of confusion and fear through state and local governments, schools, nonprofits, and companies that have set up programs and financed projects based on that funding.

Experts say the move is illegal and many groups moved quickly to sue. By Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge had temporarily blocked the funding freeze.

A 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act prohibits the president from holding back congressionally appropriated funds indefinitely without permission from Congress. As Georgetown University law professor David Super explained in a blog post today, the law also prohibits presidents from deferring funds based on policy disagreements. The memo from the Office of Management and Budget makes Trump’s policy intent explicit — it specifically directs agency heads to pause activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to … DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” It notes that the pause “will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President’s priorities.”

Some have interpreted the memo as the first salvo in an attack on the separation of powers. But perhaps the most immediate reason the pause is so cataclysmic is because of the way federal grants work.

When an entity wins federal funds, be it $270 million to expand a copper recycling facility in Kentucky, or $1.2 billion to build a hydrogen hub on the Gulf Coast, or $149 million for the state of Wisconsin to set up home energy efficiency rebate programs, the awardee doesn’t just get the money transferred over to their bank account in a lump sum. Every federal grant program works slightly differently, but the majority of them are essentially pay-as-you-go.

The first thing that happens after an agency awards a grant to a given project is the two parties negotiate a contract, outlining the terms under which the award will be administered. What milestones does the project need to hit? What does the recipient need to report back to the agency? In the context of many Department of Energy programs, this contract is called a cooperative agreement, where federal staff continue to be involved in the project throughout its implementation.

After both parties sign the agreement, the money is considered “obligated,” which means the government has a legal duty to disburse those funds per the terms of the agreement. There might be some initial transfer of funds at this point to kickstart the project, depending on the program and contract. But the recipient may not get any money at all until they submit for reimbursement.

Yep, that’s right. If you win millions of dollars from the government, you still need to submit your receipts to get paid.

This is typically not a one-and-done process. A lot of grant programs fund years-long projects, and recipients regularly invoice the government for reimbursement throughout that time. In the case of the DOE, most programs also have a cost-share requirement, where the agency will reimburse a project developer for whatever portion of the expenses it has agreed to pay. For the Inflation Reduction Act’s Home Energy Rebates, where the funding is distributed to states to implement their own programs, the program is set up to transfer funds to state energy offices in four “tranches” as recipients hit certain benchmarks.

While some projects are fully obligated up front, meaning the grantee is entitled to the full amount, others are obligated in phases. For example, the Department of Energy has selected seven regional hydrogen hubs to receive up to $7 billion. But each of those seven hubs has only been awarded a portion of the funding for “phase 1,” which can be used to pay for “initial planning, design, and community and labor engagement activities.” When they are ready to move into phase 2, they’ll have to negotiate a new award for project development, permitting, and financing. Each advancement is subject to a go/no-go decision by the DOE.

Before Biden left office, his administration said it had obligated 85% of all grants from the Inflation Reduction Act. But as you can see, most of that money is not yet out the door.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Use code: CWNYC30 to save 30%.
Subscribe to access Heatmap’s exclusive polling and expert analysis of energy, climate change, and sustainability, now just $99/year $69.30/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

‘We Are Open to Any Ideas’

On U.S. nuclear exports, German green H2, and SpaceX

Chris Wright.
Heatmap Illustration/Luke Liu

Current conditions: Aside from tides up to two feet above average on Staten Island and Long Island, the powerful nor’easter barreling toward the East Coast is likely to spare New York City • Tropical Storm Nolo is set to hit Hawaii with a potentially historic multi-day deluge • Hurricane Polo is slamming into Mexico’s Pacific coast with dangerous swells and heavy rain.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump’s energy chief says no diesel export ban coming, despite reports to the contrary

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump told reporters he had “called for” halting exports of diesel as prices roared to record highs amid a shortage of refining capacity to produce the fuel. On Wednesday, Politico reported that the administration was “preparing” a 90-day export ban. When Secretary of Energy Chris Wright took the stage at Heatmap House, our day-long summit on Wednesday in Midtown Manhattan, he told our executive editor Robinson Meyer that — contrary to the previous comments — the president “didn’t endorse” an export ban. “We are open to any ideas to lower energy prices for Americans,” Wright said at our annual event for New York Climate Week, essentially the amuse bouche before the United Nations climate summit in November. “We have a continual, thoughtful dialog based on the facts on the ground of what are the most practical steps moving forward, and it looks like right now we do need to grow the diesel supply in the United States.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
Climate

Everything Happened at Heatmap House

Tales from a day of “thoughtful dialogues on energy, climate change, and human lives” on Day 3 of New York Climate Week.

Mikie Sherrill, Al Gore, and Chris Wright.
Heatmap Illustration/Luke Liu

“I’m here because I love thoughtful dialogues on energy, climate change, and human lives,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told my colleague Robinson Meyer this afternoon. “That’s been a passion my whole life, and nothing will change that.”

It’s our passion too — and was a defining theme of Heatmap House on Wednesday at New York Climate Week, with 27 sessions across topics including clean energy development, U.S. climate policy, the future of mobility, climate tech, and reindustrialization. From Wright backpedaling on President Trump’s embrace of a diesel export ban to former Vice President Al Gore asserting that 2026 might mark “the positive tipping point on climate,” it was a full day of news, contrarian opinions, juicy predictions, and lots and lots of coffee (consumed by yours truly).

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate Tech

The Fusion Industry Needs $10 Billion to Beat China

The Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO made his case at Heatmap House.

Heatmap House speakers.
Heatmap Illustration/Luke Liu, Getty Images

Without billions in new federal investment the United States may lose its pole position in the global race to be the first nuclear fusion superpower, Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO Bob Mumgaard told attendees at Heatmap House in New York City.

When asked onstage whether Commonwealth Fusion could still develop its fusion aspirations at scale without U.S. government financing, Mumgaard said: “I think so – it’s a question of the timing and the place.” Then he suggested that the company — and the industry — might go elsewhere if the country doesn’t put more capital into the growing sector. “There are offers on the table to build nuclear fission power plants not in the United States, so we can do that.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow