Grant News

Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration: What Recent Executive Orders and the Review of Federal Financial Assistance Means for You

**This is a comprehensive blog that covers the key developments, implications, and strategies for grant seekers navigating the landscape of federal financial assistance under the new Administration. Updates to this blog will continue to be made as the situation develops. Blog last updated 3/19/25 at 2:58 pm ET**

The federal grant landscape was upended early this year by the release of several Executive Orders and Memorandum M-25-13, a sweeping directive that temporarily halted financial assistance programs for a review process aligned with the new Presidential Administration’s policy priorities. While the Administration later rescinded with memorandum M-25-14, grant seekers across all sectors - including public agencies and nonprofits – still face a multitude of questions and uncertainty around the effect of recent Executive Orders on federal funding opportunities.

Congressionally directed spending (also known as community project funding or earmarks) are line items in the United States federal budget specifically requested by individual legislators. There was a 10-year moratorium on these appropriations, but that ran out in 2021. Proponents of congressionally directed spending argue that it creates a more transparent appropriation process and enables local jurisdictions to more directly request and receive funds for their specific needs. Others believe that congressionally directed spending is wasteful or corrupt. Regardless of how you feel about this type of funding, they are a part of the current federal funding landscape and should be considered carefully when looking for support for your project.

In this article, we will explore the fiscal year 2024 congressionally directed spending landscape. We will evaluate where the funds are going and what types of projects they are predominantly funding. We will also reflect on where we are in the fiscal year 2025 funding congressionally directed spending process.

Last month marked the start of the U.S. federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) new set of rules directing the majority of federal grantmaking to nonprofits; education institutions; state, local, or tribal government agencies; and others. These rules, colloquially known as the Uniform Guidance, were first established in December 2013. Originally a consolidation of several federal rulemaking circulars, the Uniform Guidance’s policies have been periodically adjusted over the last 20 years. The most recent of these updates took effect on October 1, 2024.

When browsing through Grants.gov, you find a grant perfectly aligned with what your organization is trying to accomplish. Say you work in a university's criminal justice program and want to research police practices. You find a seemingly perfect grant, but as you read the eligibility…" Only applicants that received an official invitation letter from NIJ are able and eligible to apply." This "invitation-only" status is a common frustration for grant seekers. So, how do you crack that elusive list and get your foot in the door?

As a result of the rising number of violent incidents at K-12 schools over the last decade, schools have dedicated significant time and resources to developing ways to keep their students, faculty, and staff safe. There are a couple of different approaches education institutions take while creating and implementing an overarching school safety plan. Some institutions have focused on providing staff and students with training on what to do in the event of an incident, while others have begun developing systems for reporting suspicious or threatening behaviors before an incident happens. At the end of the day, the question all institutions must answer is - what components should a school-wide plan include to keep everyone inside (and outside) our schools safe? While there is no one-size-fits-all plan that will work for all, there are many different elements to include in your comprehensive plan, based on the needs of your institution.

Although the concept of recording law enforcement interactions is not new – police departments began using cumbersome vehicle- and helmet-mounted cameras in the 1960s (Seaskate, Inc., 1998) – the use of body-worn cameras in the United States took off after the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, sparked national outrage and renewed scrutiny of police-citizen interactions. The lack of video evidence from the incident fueled public demands for greater transparency and accountability. This moment proved to be a tipping point for Body-worn Cameras (BWC), which led to the U.S. Department of Justice's creation of the Body-worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC PIP).

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) continues to approve final plans under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. This process began in late 2021 when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was signed into law. 56 states and territories have been allocated $42.45 billion to expand internet access through planning, infrastructure deployment, and adoption.

The purpose of the State Digital Equity Grant Program is to promote the achievement of digital equity, support digital inclusion activities, and build capacity for efforts by States relating to the adoption of broadband by residents of those States. Subgrants will be made in support of the State's Digital Equity Plan and digital inclusion activities in the State generally.

Congressional earmarks are a controversial topic. Some people believe they are a valuable tool for directing funding for important local priorities, while others think they are a source of corruption, waste, and political gamesmanship.

Critics of earmarks, sometimes conflated with "pork barrel" spending, argue that they can be abused by Members of Congress to steer funding to their own districts, even if the projects are not the most important or deserving. They also argue that earmarks can be a source of corruption, as Members of Congress may be pressured to support earmarks in exchange for campaign donations or other favors.

In determining if your organization wants to take advantage of directed funding, weighing the pros and cons is essential. It is also important to hold Members of Congress accountable for the earmarks they request and ensure that the funds are used for the intended purpose.

Every year in the United States, citizens cast their ballots for the candidates of their choice in federal, state, and local elections. Voters rely on the security of election infrastructure to ensure that they can cast their votes safely and that all votes will be counted fairly. Unfortunately, physical threats against election workers have increased in the past several years, and more must be done to protect these individuals. Making voting facilities safe is important for workers and members of the public who visit to cast their ballots. In the past, states and local governments have implemented procedures and tools to keep the voting process safe and secure. In addition to physical safety measures like door locks, security cameras, and more, investments have also been made in election IT infrastructure to ensure that election information is safe from breaches and cyber threats. This includes investments in the modernization of voting equipment and election-related computer systems. To make further improvements in physical security and cybersecurity, state and local governments have the opportunity to apply for grant funding through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

Technology is used across the criminal justice spectrum to streamline processes, ensure compliance, and protect people and their data. Gone are the days of hand-written police reports faxed to the District Attorney’s office.

We all know how important technology is, but equipment ages, technology advances, and sometimes we don’t know how to fund it. Federal and state grantmakers provide funding to help those working within the criminal justice system keep ahead of the curve or at least keep abreast with it.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 provides payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including enhancing election technology and making election security improvements. Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to

•     Replace voting equipment that only records a voter’s intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter-verified paper record.
•     Implement a post-election audit system that provides a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally.
•     Upgrade election  related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through Department of Homeland Security, or similar scans or assessments of, existing election systems.
•     Facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official’s office and local election officials.
•     Implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and
•     Fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for the Federal office, including physical security services and social media threat monitoring.

Funding from the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) helps eligible entities address cybersecurity risks and threats to information systems owned or operated by—or on behalf of—state, local, and territorial (SLLT) governments. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires grant recipients to develop a Cybersecurity Plan, establish a Cybersecurity Planning Committee to support development of the Plan, and identify projects to implement utilizing SLCGP funding. To support these efforts, recipients are highly encouraged to prioritize the following activities, all of which are statutorily required as a condition of receiving a grant:

•     Developing the Cybersecurity Plan.
•     Implementing or revising the Cybersecurity Plan.
•     Paying expenses directly relating to the administration of the grant, which cannot exceed 5% of the amount of the grant award.
•     Assisting with allowed activities that address imminent cybersecurity threats confirmed by DHS; and 
•     Other appropriate activities as noted in the funding notice.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act introduced many new grant programs when passed in late 2021. These initiatives ranged from broadband and electric charging to major clean energy and water infrastructure. A handful of these funding projects are classified as smart city adjacent, but one specific program, Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation, or SMART, is the definition of a smart city grant.

The two primary federal funding agencies for public safety initiatives are the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. A review of the FY 2023 Federal Budget provides a glimpse into what these agencies will prioritize in the coming year.