❗️NEW: The Trump administration is attempting to require all federal grantees, including nonprofits, to sign new certifications under threat of civil and criminal penalties. The certifications align with President Trump’s executive orders and DOJ guidance misrepresenting “illegal” diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, focus on undocumented immigration, and use overly broad definitions of terrorism not supported by law. *To be clear, these proposed changes are unlawful. The executive branch does not have the authority to add across-the-board terms and conditions to federal funds, nor does it have the authority to add terms that go beyond what Congress has authorized or federal law. In this case, the administration is attempting to use the certification process to add terms and conditions that it cannot lawfully impose. Similar actions by other federal agencies this year have been blocked by federal judges as violating federal law or the U.S. Constitution.* The proposed changes would create significant legal and financial risks to nonprofit grantees. The new certifications are vague and complex, making it nearly impossible for grantees to know whether they are in compliance. The certifications expose grantees to possible legal harassment, which may force them to spend time and resources defending themselves in audits, investigations, and court. With the risks so significant, nonprofits may be forced to forgo applying for federal resources altogether, leading to service disruptions in communities nationwide, impacting housing, community development, health, education, food, shelter, community services, disaster recovery, and more. Ultimately, the proposed changes will harm the people and communities that rely on nonprofits and other federal grantees, and the essential services they provide. Take Action! The public has until March 30 to submit public comments in opposition to the proposal. National Council of Nonprofits has created several tools to help you and nonprofits nationwide make your voices heard. Please help us share these widely. By March 30: - Sign a national letter led by the National Council of Nonprofits and Legal Defense Fund opposing the proposed changes: https://lnkd.in/eBcjM77W - Submit a comment letter using NCN’s comment guide, which includes talking points, instructions, and more information: https://lnkd.in/e8x72TN8 - Email your members of Congress and urge them to help protect nonprofit grantees and the communities they serve: https://lnkd.in/ediqx-hy
Tamar Cloyd
3w
The distractions are distractioning…
I've been wondering how this might affect organizations like The Arc San Francisco, my org. We serve adults with developmental disabilities, which is our reason for existing. We receive state funding through the California DDS (Department of Developmental Services), which in turn receives federal funding from Health and Human Services. Will HHS restrict funding for DDS since it funds programs that do not support non-disabled people?
Just sign it. He will be out soon and then everything will be reversed and chiseled off.🏆🎉👍
And the hits just keep on coming.
Thank you for this notification. Would this apply only to new grants, or existing grants? Thanks.
Skip the public comment part and go directly to court. Every day you waste “lobbying” is a day longer it will take to get an injunction.
The Constitution does not require taxpayers to fund every nonprofit agenda.Federal grant funding is not an entitlement program for advocacy groups. It is a tool used by government to advance public policy goals defined by elected leadership and authorized by Congress. The American people elect a President to execute federal law and manage federal programs. That responsibility includes ensuring that federal dollars are not used to undermine national security, violate immigration law, or promote discriminatory practices under the guise of ideological frameworks. Holding grant recipients accountable to those standards is not unlawful. It is responsible governance. If organizations want federal money, they follow the rules attached to that money. If they do not want to follow those rules, they remain free to operate without federal funding. That is how the law has always worked. And that is how it should continue to work.
Katherine M.
3w
I remember these challenges happening months ago and I believe our in house counsel instructed us it was okay to sign b/c the new regulations were unlawful and could not be enforced. Feel free to correct me though
Strange, this country has always practiced DEI. It's called Diversity Excluded Inside. In other words, the signs that said, No N-word allowed in restaurants , lodgings, or job applications. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg described how despite being an Ivy League law graduate she couldn't be hired by a firm as a Jew, a woman or both. The list goes on. Yup DEI, part of American history. Now, we're back to the old DEI, called the Good Ole' Boys.
DC needs a BIG cleanse this Nov!