Insight into the 14 Percent of Federal Awards Targeted by Trump
Five charts clarify the insights we have regarding Trump’s suggested spending freeze.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump's endeavors to cut federal spending have ignited significant controversy across the government, leading to widespread uncertainty regarding the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars designated for various initiatives including road construction, agricultural support, health clinics, and medical research.
The Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implemented a temporary freeze on grant and loan expenditures to ensure that all outgoing funds align with the administration's policy priorities, regardless of established congressional directives. This spending freeze has sparked an ongoing legal dispute concerning the president's authority to withhold congressionally allocated funds.
As these legal challenges unfold, documents and statements from the White House, federal agencies, and court records have shed light on which programs are most vulnerable to the President's funding freeze. PMG conducted an analysis of federal financial data related to thousands of spending initiatives to gauge how much could be affected once the court disputes are resolved. The findings indicate that the administration intends to target approximately 14 percent of federal grant and loan expenditures, involving 56 departments and agencies, with implications for recipients in all 50 states.
Residents of blue states are expected to experience a greater impact from these funding restrictions.
A spreadsheet circulated by OMB in late January sought detailed information about the status and purpose of 2,623 grant, loan, and tax programs. PMG utilized this list to identify programs that might be affected by the administration's January 27 directive for a temporary halt on "all federal financial assistance," excluding Social Security and Medicare. These programs represented a total of $4.2 trillion in federally approved spending during the previous fiscal year, comprising much of the government’s expenditures for that period.
The administration subsequently released a preliminary list of exceptions, which PMG analyzed to highlight programs likely to be protected from the freeze. After accounting for these exceptions, the remaining programs at risk totaled $579 billion in projected spending for fiscal year 2024.
Despite court rulings mandating the release of the frozen funds and assurances from the administration regarding compliance, a portion of that money remains unavailable. The situation has been further complicated by agencies instituting their own limitations and retrenchments of specific funding, including allocations for electric vehicle charging stations, $20 billion in federal green grants, and $80 million intended for New York City's migrant housing. Additionally, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has endorsed significant cuts by targeting entire offices and agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while thousands of federal employees have been dismissed across the executive branch.
Furthermore, OMB instructed agencies to assess 174 tax benefits, covering allowances for military personnel, the earned-income tax credit, and tax provisions under former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, in tandem with the review of spending programs.
When asked for a comprehensive list of programs exempt from the freeze, the White House referred inquiries to OMB, which did not provide responses to multiple requests for comment.
Focusing on the potential $4 trillion at stake, OMB's January 27 memo instructed agencies to perform a “comprehensive analysis” of their assistance programs to evaluate their alignment with Trump’s policies. The accompanying spreadsheet required agencies to answer questions regarding each program’s expected disbursement before March 15, their promotion of diversity, abortion, or “gender ideology,” and whether any funds would support overseas efforts or aid “illegal aliens.”
The review list from OMB encompassed nearly all federal award programs, including some that are no longer active. In recent years, funding for these programs remained relatively stable apart from COVID-19-related expenses, much of which has already run its course, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, which ended in May 2021.
The $4.2 trillion spent in the previous fiscal year derived from funds already committed through legally binding agreements that recipients can access over time, with Biden administration officials having assumed these would be insulated from Trump’s interference. The memo does not address federal contracts or procurements, such as a Department of Defense contract for fighter jets.
Notably, a footnote in OMB’s initial memo exempted funds that go directly to individuals, explicitly naming Social Security and Medicare as exceptions. Subsequent communications also excluded major programs including Medicaid, Pell Grants, and rental assistance.
This still leaves over 2,000 programs potentially affected by the freeze, most of which benefit Democratic states and Washington, D.C.
In the previous fiscal year, states that Trump won in the 2024 election received at least $256 billion from programs that could face the freeze, while states that supported former Vice President Kamala Harris secured at least $283 billion. An additional $40 billion was allocated to U.S. territories or earmarked for entities without a specified location in USA Spending.
When analyzing expenditures per person, the disparity is even more pronounced. Red states received less funding from the targeted programs, even though a majority of Americans reside in areas Trump won in 2024. Furthermore, $34 billion was allocated to recipients in Washington, D.C., where roughly 700,000 people live, even if the funds were utilized for projects outside the district.
The primary program at risk for both red and blue states involves highway planning and construction, an expansive category that encompasses substantial guaranteed funding to states as well as grants available to applicants. In states Trump won, the next largest aid category was the national school lunch program. Conversely, in the states won by Harris, the second largest funding source was tied to USAID, where most of the funds benefitted recipients located in Washington.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
The Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implemented a temporary freeze on grant and loan expenditures to ensure that all outgoing funds align with the administration's policy priorities, regardless of established congressional directives. This spending freeze has sparked an ongoing legal dispute concerning the president's authority to withhold congressionally allocated funds.
As these legal challenges unfold, documents and statements from the White House, federal agencies, and court records have shed light on which programs are most vulnerable to the President's funding freeze. PMG conducted an analysis of federal financial data related to thousands of spending initiatives to gauge how much could be affected once the court disputes are resolved. The findings indicate that the administration intends to target approximately 14 percent of federal grant and loan expenditures, involving 56 departments and agencies, with implications for recipients in all 50 states.
Residents of blue states are expected to experience a greater impact from these funding restrictions.
A spreadsheet circulated by OMB in late January sought detailed information about the status and purpose of 2,623 grant, loan, and tax programs. PMG utilized this list to identify programs that might be affected by the administration's January 27 directive for a temporary halt on "all federal financial assistance," excluding Social Security and Medicare. These programs represented a total of $4.2 trillion in federally approved spending during the previous fiscal year, comprising much of the government’s expenditures for that period.
The administration subsequently released a preliminary list of exceptions, which PMG analyzed to highlight programs likely to be protected from the freeze. After accounting for these exceptions, the remaining programs at risk totaled $579 billion in projected spending for fiscal year 2024.
Despite court rulings mandating the release of the frozen funds and assurances from the administration regarding compliance, a portion of that money remains unavailable. The situation has been further complicated by agencies instituting their own limitations and retrenchments of specific funding, including allocations for electric vehicle charging stations, $20 billion in federal green grants, and $80 million intended for New York City's migrant housing. Additionally, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has endorsed significant cuts by targeting entire offices and agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while thousands of federal employees have been dismissed across the executive branch.
Furthermore, OMB instructed agencies to assess 174 tax benefits, covering allowances for military personnel, the earned-income tax credit, and tax provisions under former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, in tandem with the review of spending programs.
When asked for a comprehensive list of programs exempt from the freeze, the White House referred inquiries to OMB, which did not provide responses to multiple requests for comment.
Focusing on the potential $4 trillion at stake, OMB's January 27 memo instructed agencies to perform a “comprehensive analysis” of their assistance programs to evaluate their alignment with Trump’s policies. The accompanying spreadsheet required agencies to answer questions regarding each program’s expected disbursement before March 15, their promotion of diversity, abortion, or “gender ideology,” and whether any funds would support overseas efforts or aid “illegal aliens.”
The review list from OMB encompassed nearly all federal award programs, including some that are no longer active. In recent years, funding for these programs remained relatively stable apart from COVID-19-related expenses, much of which has already run its course, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, which ended in May 2021.
The $4.2 trillion spent in the previous fiscal year derived from funds already committed through legally binding agreements that recipients can access over time, with Biden administration officials having assumed these would be insulated from Trump’s interference. The memo does not address federal contracts or procurements, such as a Department of Defense contract for fighter jets.
Notably, a footnote in OMB’s initial memo exempted funds that go directly to individuals, explicitly naming Social Security and Medicare as exceptions. Subsequent communications also excluded major programs including Medicaid, Pell Grants, and rental assistance.
This still leaves over 2,000 programs potentially affected by the freeze, most of which benefit Democratic states and Washington, D.C.
In the previous fiscal year, states that Trump won in the 2024 election received at least $256 billion from programs that could face the freeze, while states that supported former Vice President Kamala Harris secured at least $283 billion. An additional $40 billion was allocated to U.S. territories or earmarked for entities without a specified location in USA Spending.
When analyzing expenditures per person, the disparity is even more pronounced. Red states received less funding from the targeted programs, even though a majority of Americans reside in areas Trump won in 2024. Furthermore, $34 billion was allocated to recipients in Washington, D.C., where roughly 700,000 people live, even if the funds were utilized for projects outside the district.
The primary program at risk for both red and blue states involves highway planning and construction, an expansive category that encompasses substantial guaranteed funding to states as well as grants available to applicants. In states Trump won, the next largest aid category was the national school lunch program. Conversely, in the states won by Harris, the second largest funding source was tied to USAID, where most of the funds benefitted recipients located in Washington.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
