The Unseen Ripples of DOGE's Departure: A Closer Look at Microgrant Woes

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) might have left Washington, but its impact is still felt across the country. The agency's goal was to make the government more efficient and accountable. However, its actions had real consequences, especially in the area of public safety. One of the biggest issues was the sudden cancellation of 373 Justice Department grants in April. These grants were worth $820 million and supported violence reduction programs, victim services, and other public safety efforts. The cancellation of these grants was a major setback for many communities. The most damaging consequence was the loss of $95 million in funding for intermediary organizations. These are larger, more experienced nonprofits that help smaller community groups and government agencies access federal support. They provide microgrants and hands-on support to overcome the complex barriers of federal grantmaking. When DOGE pulled the funding, it was not just the intermediaries that suffered, but also the smallest and least resourced communities in America. The intermediary model was designed to help small, rural organizations that often struggle to access federal funding. The process of applying for federal grants is complex and time-consuming, taking around 100 hours even for experienced organizations. Many small local governments and grassroots nonprofits simply don't have the resources to dedicate to this process. The intermediary model helped to bridge this gap.However, when the funding cuts hit, these small groups and the people they serve paid the price. For example, in rural Oregon, a microgrant allowed the Union County District Attorney to hire the office’s first investigator, who quickly zeroed in on a lead in the brutal murder of a young woman in a local park—a case that had remained unsolved for over four decades. But before he could bring the case to justice, the DOJ withdrew funding for the microgrant, and the investigation was abruptly shut down. In Bogalusa, Louisiana, a microgrant helped fill gaps in programming for at-risk kids in a rural community hit hard by gun violence. The microgrant disappeared, and so did the youth violence prevention services. In New Orleans, the loss of a microgrant meant the elimination of victim services for the grieving families of homicide victims. These are real communities, not just line items on a government spreadsheet. They are small towns trying to solve serious crimes, parents navigating unimaginable loss, and kids looking for a safe place to learn and grow. If we truly care about getting federal resources to the people and places where they can do the most good, then we should double down—not abandon—the microgrant funding model. It is one of the most promising, equitable, and fiscally responsible tools we have for expanding access to federal funding. DOGE may be gone, but the task of making government work for everyone—especially those farthest from Washington—has barely begun.