Changes will Create Uncertainty with County Budget

Sarah McMillen
Aug 14
5 min read

At the most recent BOCC Staff Meeting (8/11/2026), discussion concerning federal grant money regulations and upcoming changes outlined concerns about the impact it will have on the county.

CHANGES INCLUDE:

Event Services - Public entities receiving federal funds are subject to a viewpoint-neutrality mandate on all county-controlled property as a condition of receiving any federal funds, even if the event of facility does not receive any federal funding.

- Applies to libraries, community centers, parks, fairgrounds, and public meeting rooms – whether or not those facilities or events received any federal funding.

Risk Evaluation - Expands pre-award risk factors to include applicant “affiliations” with organizations that do not align with Executive Orders or "national interest".

- Counties routinely partner with universities, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, and community groups. Whether any relationship could constitute a disqualifying affiliation is unclear.

Discretionary Termination - Agencies may terminate awards if no longer in the “national interest” as conditions exist at time of termination – not at time of obligation.

- Competitive grants for transportation, housing, public safety, and economic development at risk. The block/formula carve-out protects the majority of county funding by volume but leaves competitive portfolios fully exposed.[i]

What does this mean?

Federal political appointees will now have a direct role in discretionary grants. These political appointees will conduct a “preissuance review” and decide who will be awarded these grants. This review looks at an applicant’s “historical practices, current memberships and affiliations.”[ii]

To receive the grant, the applicant must meet:

1. President’s policy priorities

2. Agency priorities

3. Comply with law

If at any point a grant is determined by the political appointee to no longer align with these standards, they can immediately terminate the grant.

There is no appeal path. This decision is final.[iii]

The county will now have to review and implement a “deescalation of DEI” and ensure that these rules are being followed at “all county controlled property as a condition of receiving any federal funds even if the event or facility doesn't receive federal funding.”

This includes events at parks, county fairs, libraries, and the rental of the Coleman lot.

These changes have already led to the recommendation to not pursue an “outreach grant” and to “avoid accepting any high-risk grants” that might not fully align with national interests or the president’s policies[iv]

Consequences:

The potential consequences to Sedgwick County are significant. These include:

· Not applying for potential grants out of fear the targeted groups would be considered “DEI” or “high-risk”.

· Loss of essential funding and research.

· Loss of rental income for events that would be considered a violation of DEI de- escalation or serving members of certain groups (such as those held at the Coleman lot), regardless of the benefit they provide the community.[v]

· Could be sued by a private entity if they believe not complying and the federal government could opt to be a party in the litigation.

· The administrative and legal oversight costs incurred by the county will greatly increase to meet these guidelines and could place county at risk of violating Constitutional rights.

· Sudden funding halts could affect municipal bond ratings and raise city borrowing costs.

· Public safety, transit, and housing projects could face funding gaps with little warning.[vi]

· Requires compliance to EO that have not been enacted into law threatening the county with no expectation of stability with any grant received due to shifting federal expectations.[vii]

The guidelines themselves pose a threat to a person’s First Amendment Rights

There have been several groups including the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, American Associate for Cancer Research and the CATO Institute, that have spoken out against these changes. These changes will be used to:

· Pressure local governments to sign agreements with ICE or they will lose grants for EMS, police gear, and rape prosecution

· Threatens the removal of funding for Head Start classrooms and childcare that parents rely on to work, rural hospitals and community mental health and substance-use treatment clinics, Bridges, water systems, and broadband projects already under construction, Title I and special-education funding for schools and students, Meals on Wheels and senior services funded under the Older Americans Act, Peer-reviewed scientific research at NIH, NSF, NASA, DoD, DOE, NOAA and every other federal science agency[viii]

The CATO Institute describe this as a degradation of the separation of powers, coercion, usurping authority – “TURNING GRANTS INTO A POWER GRAB”[ix]

“If successful, it would establish a concerning precedent that would allow the executive branch to use the expansive volume of federal grants to coerce other levels of government into following a president’s policy agenda. This includes attempting to claw back previously disbursed Homeland Security funding and issuing agency-wide memos freezing certain grants based on immigration policy demands.”

“The Trump administration’s attempt to use federal grants to obtain cooperation with ICE is also an example of the degradation of the separation of powers, as governing power is increasingly concentrated in the White House.”

“First…the executive branch is attempting to usurp the legislative branch’s authority. Second, the executive branch is attempting to control policy at the state and local levels. If courts do not rule against the administration, it would encourage similar tactics in the future, with potential ramifications across the spectrum of domestic policy areas.”

If this continues, we will need to raise more local money to meet the needs of programs and essential services that in the past received grants to help reduce their budgetary needs from the county. “The proposed rule change shifts immense regulation, risk and liability onto municipalities, making it far more challenging to plan, fund, and execute the community services our constituents depend on every day.”[x]

The American Association for Cancer Research and Research America have spoken out about the changes, describing them “a major threat” causing a delay in “discoveries, treatments, cures and public health advances that Americans depend on.”[xi][xii]

There are 155,066 published comments and almost 500,000 were submitted. Many county commissions including Geary County have submitted comments.

We need leaders on our commission that are willing to advocate and push back on policies that will harm the most vulnerable in our community and pose potential violations of our constitutional rights. Any administration, regardless of political party, that uses this overreach to control and harm communities must be called out.

Accountability and transparency in government spending is essential, but these actions are, as the CATO Institute states, an attempt to usurp authority through coercion and will come at a great cost to communities.