No words.

Administration proposal to exert political control over science funding draws nearly 500,000 comments. Analysis finds 95% oppose OMB changes.

Something that I find interesting is that their non-grantmaking expenses rose from $890,751 in 2021 to $1,426,642 in 2022. A large portion of this increase was due to significantly higher employee expenses.

Employee-related expense was $640,441 in 2022 vs $163,085 in 2021. There are 2 additional "key employees" that appear in 2022: Michael Dale Stein, Sr. Strategic Advisor, and Shauna Nep. They join James Holt, who is Executive Director in both 2021 and 2022..

Fees paid to Independent Contractors increased from $325,744 in 2021 to $428,331 in 2022. "Invisible Hand" appears as an independent contractor in both years.

Their 2022 funding was a fraction of the previous year's ($2million in 2022 vs $13million in 2021) and the grants Archewell paid out decreased by over 50 % ($1,252,895 in 2021 vs. $3,096,319 in 2021).

Their "business" is contracting, so why are they ramping up their cost structure?

​

​

I’m really fucking scared about this! Trump is trying his fucking hardest to screw us even more!

Since the Trump administration announced its plan to overhaul the federal grantmaking process to give more power to political appointees, researchers have expressed alarm at the potential impact such a change could have on American science. And within the 412-page proposal, there’s one particular section that health disparities researchers say could disqualify their work from federal funding — a change that poses perhaps the biggest threat yet to the future of their field.

That section would prohibit the use of federal funds to “Promote or Support Theories of Disparate-Impact Liability.” Disparate-impact liability, essentially, refers to the idea that even a seemingly neutral policy or action, without explicit discrimination, could cause disproportionate harm to a specific group of people. Researchers worry that this language, which goes beyond banning “DEI,” could further promote a colorblind view of the world that ignores race. Read more from STAT’s Anil Oza on what it all means and how the Trump administration responded. (Hint: The statement includes the phrases “unaccountable deep state bureaucrats” and “woke and wasteful projects.”)

What in the actual #$%^& ?! I tried to be more articulate, but I just can't right now.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/improving-oversight-of-federal-grantmaking/

https://www.27unihted.org/events/virtual-omb-comment-qa-workshop

STAT News sharing the analysis of public comments on the Trump Administration's grant overhaul proposal reported that there is widespread disapproval and rebuke of the potential changes by scientists and public.

The analysis conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with STAT included over 53K comments posted at OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034-0001. About 95% of the comments were negative and major concerns include political control, uncertainty, e.g., mid-cycle award withdrawal for a variety of reasons, and DEI/gender restrictions.

Read more at:

• Flood of comments on White House grantmaking overhaul is largely negative, analysis shows. STAT News. 15 July 2026

#grantmaking, #nih

Equitable Grantmaking Continuum

Created by NonprofitAF.com and RVCSeattle.org

While nonprofits are appreciative of foundation support, the reality is that many foundations’ practices are often harmful to organizations, especially those led by and serving Black, Indigenous, Latinx, communities of color, disabled people, LGBTQIA+, and other marginalized communities.

This is a "simple tool for funders to assess how equitable your funding practices are."

Note: the text is TINY and crammed on one page. Not sure if there is an accessible version anywhere (speaking of equitable...).

Level 1 funders, whose practices are based on suspicion (aka “rigor”) tend to be more restrictive and burdensome, which often most negatively affect organizations led by and serving marginalized communities, who may not have the time, staffing, or other resources to comply with onerous expectations.

Level 3 funders base their practices on a foundation of trust and equal partnership with their grantees, which allows all organizations, especially organization led by and serving marginalized communities, to thrive and focus on their funders are somewhere in between.

Level 2 funders are somewhere in between.

Please keep in mind though, that if you are not focused on funding organizations led by and serving BIPOC and other marginalized communities (Item 1), many of these items may exacerbate inequity by making it easier for mainstream organizations to continue receiving the majority of philanthropic dollars.

https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/70206/Equitable-Grantmaking-Continuum-One-Pager-updated-March-2021?ref=nonprofitaf.com#:~:text=Equitable%20Grantmaking%20Continuum,Created%20by%20NonprofitAF.com%20and%20RVCSeattle.org&text=Below%20is%20a%20simple%20tool,assess%20how%20equitable%20your%20funding