Pause and effect: Threat of Trump funding freeze is making the future tense for North Carolina nonprofits
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press March 26, 2025
As President Donald Trump and his appointees rifle through the country’s balance sheets looking for federal spending to slash, many North Carolina nonprofits are operating in a state of financial uncertainty, hoping they’re not the next target of the administration’s cost-cutting ambitions.
While state agencies haven’t reported any major problems accessing the federal funds that trickle down to the more than 3,000 nonprofits that receive government grants, those organizations are still behaving as if it is a possibility.
The strategy for many has been to stay quiet and avoid drawing attention to themselves.
One week after Trump took office, he issued a memo ordering all federal agencies to temporarily freeze spending on loans and grants. This was necessary, the memo stated, so that officials could review whether the agencies’ payments were aligned with Trump’s previous orders aimed at “financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology and the green new deal.”
The vague memo sent shockwaves through Washington, confusing agencies and angering members of Congress across the political spectrum.
The memo directed that Medicare and Social Security benefits be unaffected by the freeze. But the White House later had to clarify that other programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, colloquially known as food stamps) would also remain untouched.
Two days later, the memo was rescinded altogether.
Lawsuits over the legality of the freeze are ongoing. However, the message to organizations receiving federal money was clear:
Anyone not in lockstep with the Trump agenda risks having their government dollars taken away.
Nonprofit decisions made ‘difficult’
Since 2020, the federal government has funnelled $200 billion into North Carolina through grants and subgrants — funding awarded from an agency to a smaller agency or organization, which is then further distributed to more modest awardees.
The awardees who receive the bulk of federal grants typically fall into one of three categories: state government agencies, universities and hospitals.
None of those types of institutions are at acute risk of being crippled by the revocation of federal funding.
Small nonprofits, however, are worried. Especially those whose values directly contradict the conservative cultural ideology of the Trump administration.
State agencies, such as the N.C. Department of Public Safety, haven’t reported any major problems accessing the federal funds that trickle down to the more than 3,000 nonprofits that receive government grants. Lucas Thomae / Carolina Public Press
Carolina Public Press reached out to a plethora of state-based nonprofits to ask how they were dealing with financial uncertainty in the wake of the funding freeze. The missions of those organizations ranged from providing affordable childcare to advancing creative arts education to supporting victims of violent crime.
Not many organizations were willing to speak openly — or even anonymously.
“With the climate being rather delicate currently, we are not comfortable commenting on the federal funding and grants situation,” said the communications directorof a nonprofit that provides services to the children of migrant workers in North Carolina and several other states.
Other nonprofits who declined to be interviewed or did not respond to CPP’s inquiry at all included the North Carolina Victim Assistance Network, the LGBTQ Center of Durham and Help, Incorporated: Center Against Violence.
Each of those organizations received federal funding last year that originated from the U.S. Department of Justice and was intended to fund programs to support victims of domestic violence and other violent crime.
The strategy for many nonprofits has been to not attract attention in the hopes that they can continue to operate without much trouble.
Other organizations, such as the United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County (United Arts), have already seen their federal grants become threatened.
United Arts works closely with Wake County Public Schools to provide students with creative arts experiences, and the organization also awards annual subgrants to local artists to support their projects.
The National Endowment for the Arts recently awarded United Arts a $50,000 grant for distributionto local artists, but that award is now “under review,” United Arts CEO Jenn McEwen announced in February.
“The odds of our NEA grant being rejected in the review process is high,” McEwen said.
In order to offset that potential loss, United Arts urged its supporters for donations.
“Beyond our organization, many of our grantees — small nonprofit arts organizations — are already facing difficult financial decisions,” United Arts public relations manager John Craven told CPP in an email. “Some are scaling back on programs that support their mission but are not central to their signature or flagship offerings as they navigate the uncertainty around federal, state and local funding.
“The combined pressures of this funding uncertainty and economic instability are making it increasingly difficult for these organizations to plan for the future.”
Counting the costs for nonprofits
There are around 10,000 nonprofit organizations in North Carolina. A recent analysis from the nonprofit research center Candid found that 9,946 organizations filed a full 990 tax form at least once between 2021 and 2023.
Of those organizations, just over one third reported receiving at least one government grant in their most recent tax filing.
All in all, North Carolina nonprofits received more than $7 billion from the government through grants.
The Urban Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., further analyzed nonprofit grant data and broke it down at the county level. Researchers found that the organizations in rural regions of the state benefit most from government funding.
The analysis further indicated that nonprofits in rural counties such as Anson, Jones and Northampton would have the biggest financial gap to fill if the Trump administration cost them government grants.
All of the nonprofits in eight North Carolina counties — Anson, Gates, Martin, Montgomery, Perquimans, Person, Sampson and Stokes — would have operating deficits if their government grants were taken away. That’s 46 nonprofits in all.
In 98 of North Carolina’s 100 counties, at least half of the nonprofits would experience an operating deficit if not for their government funding.
As far as subsectors go, the financial uncertainty that comes with the potential loss of government funding is indiscriminate. The Urban Institute found that 75% of education nonprofits, 73% of human services nonprofits and 64% of arts nonprofits in the state would operate in the red without their government grants.
Hospitals and nonprofits related to religion and the environment had the smallest share of organizations reliant on government funding, although that number was still north of 40%.
A ‘fluid’ situation
Although nonprofits are preparing to potentially lose grant money from the Trump funding freeze, that hasn’t been the reality yet.
Two of North Carolina’s most important pass-through funding agencies — the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Public Safety — told CPP they’ve made all scheduled payments to subgrant recipients this year.
Both award millions of dollars worth of subgrants to nonprofits across the state each year.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said that the agency had experienced unexpected delays to some federal payouts, although they were eventually received.
“There have been instances when payments were unexpectedly delayed as well as isolated payments that were under review by federal counterparts for a short period of time,” the spokeswoman said.
The Health and Human Services grants that were put under federal review included money intended to support mental health services and substance-abuse treatments.
At the same time, neither agency denied that they experienced complications related to the federal funding freeze.
“Presently, (the Department of Public Safety) is not having difficulty accessing funding,” a spokeswoman told CPP in an email last week. “The situation is fluid, and we will continue to monitor our ability to drawdown our federal reimbursements and adjust or modify our operations as necessary.”
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
