Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Aren’t there a lot of grants done on a reimbursement basis? That is, the grantee has to do the outlay first and then come back for reimbursement? That means they’ll be stuck holding bag for money they’ve alt spent in reliance on the grant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens all the time, new admins come in and review everything. I don’t think it’s something to get worked up about.

You can’t because this hasn’t happened before. We are talking trillions of dollars.

Wonderful! This is what the American people voted for.

Please cite the last time a new administration paused every federal grant. You said this happens all the time. Give one example.

Not the PP but this is, unfortunately, what American voters seem to want. Maybe if it hits hard enough some of them will realize it wasn’t really what they wanted, but time will tell.

No it’s not. He didn’t win a popular majority; 1.7 million more people voted against him than for him. Only 23% of the population actually cast a ballot for him. His party also has historically narrow majorities in the House and Senate despite structural advantages that should tilt both chambers in Republicans’ favor.

More importantly, he disavowed Project 2025 on the campaign trail because polls showed it was deeply unpopular. But now, he is enacting every policy it laid out and even letting Project 2025 authors draft the implementation memos. He lied. Again. And now the whole country gets to suffer for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of these are undercover dei handouts it's not a surprise we need to take a closer look at them . Many are full of waste.

No, honey. You are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Aren’t there a lot of grants done on a reimbursement basis? That is, the grantee has to do the outlay first and then come back for reimbursement? That means they’ll be stuck holding bag for money they’ve alt spent in reliance on the grant.

Yes, in our agency. Almost all are done on a reimbursement basis. I don't want to out my agency but we give grants to a population that is typically very Republican - they will feel this and I hope they rip him a new one.

I would hope you implement this memo vigorously when it comes to those particular people

Anonymous wrote:Many of these are undercover dei handouts it's not a surprise we need to take a closer look at them . Many are full of waste.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Aren’t there a lot of grants done on a reimbursement basis? That is, the grantee has to do the outlay first and then come back for reimbursement? That means they’ll be stuck holding bag for money they’ve alt spent in reliance on the grant.

Yes, in our agency. Almost all are done on a reimbursement basis. I don't want to out my agency but we give grants to a population that is typically very Republican - they will feel this and I hope they rip him a new one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Aren’t there a lot of grants done on a reimbursement basis? That is, the grantee has to do the outlay first and then come back for reimbursement? That means they’ll be stuck holding bag for money they’ve alt spent in reliance on the grant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't have the legal authority to do this.

which is why Rs in Congress or the courts have to grow a spine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The memo gets basic facts about government spending wrong. These people are morons. Just some of the most objectively stupid people you could ever find.

Agree. And uses terms that are political culture attacks not actual descriptions of programs. And tries to freeze funds that are disbursed under law, not EO. This is based on project 2025- I thought project 2025 would have at least had the brains to write a coherent memo that accurately described their nefarious plans. I would ignore this memo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Aren’t there a lot of grants done on a reimbursement basis? That is, the grantee has to do the outlay first and then come back for reimbursement? That means they’ll be stuck holding bag for money they’ve alt spent in reliance on the grant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the grant funds have already been disbursed the recipient can continue to operate-just no further disbursement of open awards or obligations of new awards. Also it pauses activities like reviews of applications, issuance of funding opportunities. I’m worried the next step after this “review” is the cancellation of grants that don’t comply with the EOs. That’s going to cause chaos.

Given that recipients in some agencies are instructed to draw down funds as close to expenditure as feasible (i.e. don't advance 3 months funding), I don't think splitting that hair gets you fair. Restricting disbursement of obligated funds is going to stop everyone in their tracks.

+1 Nothing is fully funded right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't have the legal authority to do this.

which is why Rs in Congress or the courts have to grow a spine.