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.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
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
Energy

Exclusive: Japan’s Tiny Nuclear Reactors Are Headed to Texas

The fourth-generation gas-cooled reactor company ZettaJoule is setting up shop at an unnamed university.

A Texas sign at a ZettaJoule facility.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, ZettaJoule

The appeal of next-generation nuclear technology is simple. Unlike the vast majority of existing reactors that use water, so-called fourth-generation units use coolants such as molten salt, liquid metal, or gases that can withstand intense heat such as helium. That allows the machines to reach and maintain the high temperatures necessary to decarbonize industrial processes, which currently only fossil fuels are able to reach.

But the execution requirements of these advanced reactors are complex, making skepticism easy to understand. While the U.S., Germany, and other countries experimented with fourth-generation reactors in earlier decades, there is only one commercial unit in operation today. That’s in China, arguably the leader in advanced nuclear, which hooked up a demonstration model of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor to its grid two years ago, and just approved building another project in September.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Spotlight

The 5 Fights to Watch in 2026

Spoiler: A lot of them are about data centers.

Data centers and clean energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s now clear that 2026 will be big for American energy, but it’s going to be incredibly tense.

Over the past 365 days, we at The Fight have closely monitored numerous conflicts over siting and permitting for renewable energy and battery storage projects. As we’ve done so, the data center boom has come into full view, igniting a tinderbox of resentment over land use, local governance and, well, lots more. The future of the U.S. economy and the energy grid may well ride on the outcomes of the very same city council and board of commissioners meetings I’ve been reporting on every day. It’s a scary yet exciting prospect.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Texas Data Center Dispute Turns Tawdry

Plus a resolution for Vineyard Wind and more of the week’s big renewables fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Hopkins County, Texas – A Dallas-area data center fight pitting developer Vistra against Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has exploded into a full-blown political controversy as the power company now argues the project’s developer had an improper romance with a city official for the host community.

  • For those who weren’t around for the first go, here’s the low-down: The Dallas ex-urb of Sulphur Springs is welcoming a data center project proposed by a relatively new firm, MSB Global. But the land – a former coal plant site – is held by Vistra, which acquired the property in a deal intended for remediating the site. After the city approved the project, Vistra refused to allow construction on the land, so Sulphur Springs sued, and in its bid to win the case, the city received support from Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, whose office then opened an antitrust investigation into the power company’s land holdings.
  • Since we first reported this news, the lawsuit has escalated. Vistra’s attorneys have requested Sulphur Springs’ attorney be removed from the court proceedings because, according to screenshots of lengthy social media posts submitted to the court, the city itself has confirmed that the attorney dated a senior executive for MSB Global as recently as the winter of 2024.
  • In a letter dated December 10, posted online by activists fighting the data center, Vistra’s attorneys now argue the relationship is what led to the data center coming to the city in the first place, and that the attorney cannot argue on behalf of the city because they’ll be a fact witness who may need to provide testimony in the case: “These allegations make awareness of negotiations surrounding the deed and the City’s subsequent conduct post-transaction, including any purported ‘reliance’ on Vistra Parties’ actions and omissions, relevant.”
  • I have not heard back from MSB Global or Sulphur Springs about this case, but if I do, you’ll be hearing about it.

2. La Plata County, Colorado – This county has just voted to extend its moratorium on battery energy storage facilities over fire fears.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow