After the Trump Administration’s Jan. 27 memorandum placed a temporary pause on grants relating to Federal Financial Assistance and non-governmental organizations, communities believed they would lose federal funding vital to daily operations. While the order itself was soon rescinded, the disorder and conflict inflicted by the freeze on such programs indicate the necessity of being informed about similar scenarios and the importance of community support in the face of funding cuts.
The memo called for a pause in federal funding while the Trump Administration reevaluates if the organizations’ spending aligns with President Donald Trump’s priorities. While some forms of direct assistance like Medicare and Social Security are not affected, the memo’s impacts on other programs can still result in devastating effects on California and the country as a whole. One-third of California’s $490 billion budget comes from federal funds. About 80 percent of this goes into healthcare, which would disrupt the efficacy of healthcare programs such as Medi-Cal — California’s Medicaid program — and Obamacare. Even though it was intended to be temporary, a freeze executed like this only causes confusion and harm to the very people they have allegedly pledged to help. Future potential freezes would almost certainly have similar effects, especially for those who rely on this funding the most.
“Healthcare and healthcare services for elderly, for low income, for single mothers and for people with disabilities are going to be hit the worst,” West Valley College political science professor Jamilya Ukudeeva said.
Another 10 percent of California’s budget goes into social services, which includes crucial services like education, labor development and transportation. As a result of the funding freeze, programs and organizations like Cal-Fresh and California Earned Income Tax Credit would have to make cuts on provided services. Furthermore, House Republicans’ plan to pass a budget resolution gutting funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will leave the 40 million people who rely on it without a sense of food security.
A 15 percent limit of “indirect costs” was also imposed on the National Institutes of Health, which has historically averaged between 27 and 28 percent. While this does not affect direct costs spent toward research, other areas vital to labs would be negatively impacted. This includes money used for facility maintenance, along with general administrative and overhead costs. Such a cut could severely hinder research with the loss of funds for maintaining lab operations and devastate scientific progress and the scientists who foster it.
“This is how the United States has been at the top of the scientific world for quite a bit — professors want to come here,” sophomore and Politics Club officer Prajwal Avadhani said. “They don’t want to go anywhere else because of the funding that the federal government offers.”
The administration argues that it is necessary to freeze funds in order to ensure the funds are in accordance with Trump’s policies. However, the attempted evaluation has led to confusion, especially following the rescission of the memo. After multiple federal judges placed halts on the funding freeze, some funds have still not been released. Farmers throughout the country have yet to receive U.S. Department of Agriculture grants, and states have reported being shut out of Medicaid payment portals and unable to access vital resources and billing services. Child education programs such as Head Start are also unable to access federal funding, leading to several programs temporarily shutting down. Unable to access their funds, many families and their children may lose out on early care and educational services. Losing out on this means a severe impact on people who rely on it for work, education and development.
It would be challenging for California to address the $170 billion absence in its budget. To make up for it, cuts would have to be made to a wide range of public services including education, healthcare and safety programs. While the likelihood of this process going through is slim due to heavy legal scrutiny — at least two federal judges have placed halts on the freeze and multiple states are suing the administration — people should remain informed about the potential impact of such freezes. People can show their support by speaking out against current and future executive orders and voicing concerns to state representatives via call or email.
“Even if it doesn’t affect me directly, I’m not living in isolation,” Ukudeeva said. “I’m surrounded by people, and I will be affected by people who are sick but cannot see a doctor. I will be surrounded by people who should go to college but cannot go to college. I will be surrounded by people who need assistance but cannot get that assistance. I prefer living in a society where people are able to see doctors, able to get education and improve their lives, so I consider that a direct hit on me.”
