Daniel Denis

Congress passes a funding bill. The money is appropriated. But under the White House's new 400-page regulatory blueprint, a political appointee can now block that money from reaching its destination if it doesn't "demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities." That is not a metaphor for executive overreach. That is the literal proposed mechanism. The rule would prohibit grants to any project that "promotes anti-American values" - undefined - or assists in voter registration, advances DEI, or "denies the biological reality of sex." Political appointees, not subject matter experts, would decide what qualifies as "gold standard science." Researchers would face limits on which foreign labs they can collaborate with and which conferences they can attend. The National Council of Nonprofits represents more than 30,000 organizations that receive federal grants to deliver child care, health services, housing, and other programs on behalf of the US government. Their senior vice president told the Times that many nonprofits may simply decide it is "not worth the risk" to seek funding. Think about what that means in concrete terms. A legal aid clinic in Gary, Indiana that helps low-income families navigate housing court. A rural health nonprofit in Morgan County providing mental health services in a county with one psychiatrist. A child care provider in Elkhart running on federal grants. None of them make policy. All of them deliver services Congress already funded. Under this rule, a political appointee in Washington can decide their work doesn't advance the president's priorities and cut them off. Courts have already blocked multiple versions of this same approach. The administration's own lawyer at the American Public Health Association said this is an attempt to "codify" what courts previously rejected. The regulation is aimed at October. That is before the midterms.