Cutting Grants → Cutting People: Why Program Eliminations Precede Federal RIFs (and What Recipients Must Do Now)

October 12, 2025

Across administrations, attempts to shrink the federal workforce rarely stick if they target headcount alone. The more durable play is to eliminate or scale down the functions that justify those employees—and grants are often first on the list. Project 2025 says the quiet part out loud: while reducing civil-service numbers is politically legible, “cutting functions, levels, funds, and grants is much more important than setting simple employment size.” Heritage Foundation

The logic is straightforward: with ~2 million federal employees, a far larger contractor corps, and millions of state/local workers funded by federal grants, you can’t sustainably cut staff without first shrinking the programs they administer. Heritage Foundation That’s why grant programs become early targets—reduce or end the program, and the staffing case collapses.

What that means for states, locals, and subrecipients

If your program’s federal line item is questioned, your best protection is proof of value—clear, timely, auditable evidence that dollars → outputs → outcomes for residents. Narratives alone won’t carry the day. Measurement will.

How the current shutdown accelerates program cuts

A shutdown doesn’t just pause normal business—it primes the system to shrink or eliminate programs:

• Approvals and oversight go dark. During a lapse in appropriations, agencies curtail routine grants administration and many staff are furloughed. That means slower or suspended NOFOs, grants officer guidance, modifications, and monitoring—creating “evidence gaps” opponents can later cite as grounds to de-fund or consolidate programs. White House
• Obligations stall; deadlines collide. With limited staff and frozen processes, time-sensitive award actions and closeout steps can slip. Once backlogs pile up, leadership has an easy argument to “streamline” by cutting lower-visibility grant lines rather than rebuilding capacity. CBO also flags shutdown-related performance and timing hits across agencies. Congressional Budget Office
• RIF/Reorg planning is already on the table. Separate from the shutdown itself, agencies have been instructed to prepare workforce optimization/RIF and reorg plans on tight timelines in 2025. A prolonged shutdown becomes the accelerant: programs paused today are easier to deem “non-essential” tomorrow. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
• Stop-work orders compound the narrative. Several agency contingency plans explicitly anticipate stop-work on contracts and grants—fueling the “program not operating” story that justifies permanent reductions. NLRB+1

Bottom line: The shutdown environment makes Project 2025’s emphasis on cutting functions, funds, and grants far easier to execute than headcount-only reductions. If the function disappears, the staffing case follows. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

What recipients should do in this environment (now)

• Publish outcomes on a cadence (quarterly “dollars → outputs → outcomes” tiles).
• Keep your files audit-ready despite limited agency comms—so process isn’t the pretext for cuts.
• Document shutdown impacts (missed approvals, paused oversight) so performance dips are traceable to the lapse, not program design.
• Pre-brief state/federal partners with your evidence pack—unit costs, before/after deltas, KPI trendlines.

A defensible “value case” (you can assemble this quarter)

• Outcome matrix: Tie each dollar to outputs → outcomes with a concise logic model; publish quarterly.
• Unit costs with context: Cost per household served, per mile improved, per permit processed—benchmarked to peers or pre-grant baselines.
• Before/after deltas: Show time-to-service, backlog, or incident-rate reductions since grant start.
• Counterfactuals: What would degrade (and how quickly) without the grant? Quantify service cuts, wait times, public-safety or economic impacts.
• Compliance readiness: Zero-repeat-findings posture (internal controls, monitoring, documentation index) to remove “risk” as an excuse for cuts.
• Community signal: Short fact sheets and dashboards residents and electeds can understand in 60 seconds.

Fast moves to get “defense-ready”

1. Pick 3–5 headline metrics your CFO/Mayor/Board will champion; lock definitions and data owners.
2. Stand up a lightweight evidence pack in your grant file: KPI snapshot, GL↔SEFA crosswalk, monitoring status, and a one-page outcomes summary.
3. Publish a quarterly transparency tile (web or PDF) with dollars, delivery, and outcomes; keep it consistent.
4. Pre-brief your delegation and state partners with the evidence pack, not just talking points.
5. Harden compliance basics (SAM/UEI active, portal access/MFA, subrecipient risk coverage) so opponents can’t shift the debate to process.

Bottom line

If strategy is to cut federal headcount by first cutting grants, the only durable counter is to make your grant undeniably valuable and low-risk—in numbers, not just words. Build your evidence now, keep it current, and make it public. That’s how you protect programs, preserve capacity, and keep delivering outcomes people can feel.

Managing grants efficiently, without compromising compliance and integrity, can be a challenging task. If your organization is navigating the complexities of grant management, we can help you enhance oversight, streamline processes, ensure outcomes and reduce the risks of waste, fraud, and abuse. Reach out today to learn how our expertise in grants management can ensure your programs meet their goals, stay compliant, and make the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

Authored by: