The situation took a turn when President Trump assumed office, as the EPA placed a hold on the grant, preventing the district from accessing the much-needed funds. Even following two court rulings instructing the Trump administration to lift the freeze on federal grants, the EPA continues to refuse the disbursement.

As a result, the buses remain stationary. “They are just 52 miles away in a small town in Illinois, and we can’t bring them here,” expressed Chris Kilbride, the superintendent of Ritenour School District, which serves approximately 6,500 students in the St. Louis area.

The Trump administration continues to maintain a freeze on an undisclosed number of federal grants, leaving nonprofits, state agencies, and other recipients unable to access promised funds from previous administrations.

After losing in court, officials in the Trump administration changed their justification for the grant freezes, claiming that their hold is now more targeted rather than broad, aimed solely at specific grants that allegedly did not meet prior conditions.

This strategy appeared effective on Wednesday, as a federal judge permitted the government to withhold a specific $80 million grant due to claimed mismanagement.

Organizations affected by the funding freeze reported a lack of communication regarding these developments. They have been forced to halt various initiatives, including wildfire prevention projects in Montana, solar panel installations in Massachusetts, and the construction of an emergency shelter in Mississippi, all while vendors await long-overdue payments. The uncertainty has raised questions about whether this is a misunderstanding, technical glitch, or a permanent loss of funding.

“There was nothing but silence. An utter lack of communication,” remarked Holly Brewer, a professor of American history at the University of Maryland, who received a competitive grant from the National Archives to investigate the legal frameworks governing slavery in the British Empire and early American history.

Dr. Brewer noted, “What we’re discussing concerning authoritarian regimes in the early modern era is reflective of current actions regarding these grants, such as bypassing legislative processes and positioning the executive branch above the law.”

The National Archives did not respond to inquiries about her grant status; likewise, the White House remained silent on its overall strategy regarding the funding freeze.

Initially, the Trump administration’s funding freeze, which affected as much as $3 trillion in grants, was announced on January 27 to allow new officials time to assess “awards already made that conflict with administration priorities.” Targeted programs included those related to diversity initiatives, climate action, and environmental justice.

Two groups—one of nonprofits and another coalition of state attorneys general—filed lawsuits claiming that Congress had legally allocated these funds, and the president had no authority to impose a blanket freeze.

Both sides saw some success when two judges issued temporary orders halting the freeze. However, the Trump administration argued for the right to target or withdraw grants individually if they believed those programs were non-compliant with laws or regulations.

David Super, a Georgetown University law professor, noted that clear communication is crucial: “The administration must provide a valid rationale for freezing or canceling a grant; vague statements like ‘we’re looking for a reason’ aren’t sufficient.”

This week, federal agencies indicated they were adopting this refined approach. The EPA, for instance, announced that it would only block certain grants, with specifics not disclosed.

“EPA officials have identified particular grant programs that may not align with required financial and procedural standards or grant conditions,” the agency stated. It did not elaborate on specific grants involved in The New York Times reporting.

On Wednesday, federal judge John J. McConnell Jr. validated this tactic by allowing FEMA to withhold another grant earmarked for immigrant housing in New York City, stating that agencies could utilize their lawful authorities for funding withholdings.

These legal disputes primarily concern domestic grants and have not influenced the suspension of U.S. foreign aid, which remains in effect.

The ramifications have been significant, even for entities whose funding has since been released; most federal grants don’t operate like lump-sum prizes but are akin to a series of expense reports. Grantees are required to cover costs upfront and later seek reimbursement with proper documentation.

As Erin Trapp, CEO of the La Pine Community Health Center in Oregon, stated, “They monitor to ensure resources aren’t misused or underutilized.” Her organization operates on a thin financial margin, having had to lay off over 10% of its staff when their funding was momentarily halted during the initial freeze.

Despite having received funding, some groups remain anxious they could be next on the target list, worried that the restoration of financial support may only be short-term.

The surge in demand upon reopening federal payment systems left many overwhelmed, as numerous organizations scrambled to secure funds before another potential cutoff.

“It resembled a bank run,” remarked Marty Carty, director of government affairs for the Oregon Primary Care Association, representing clinics like Trapp’s.

Others are not so fortunate; some organizations are still facing ongoing funding freezes.

In Jackson, Mississippi, Dominika Parry received a single-word explanation: her federal grant account was marked “suspended.”

Her nonprofit, 2CMississippi, was awarded a $20 million grant from the EPA directed towards renovating a shelter designed to shield residents in a vulnerable area from hurricanes and the frequent power outages that plague Jackson during sweltering summers. This facility aims to accommodate 100 people, with air conditioning powered by a solar microgrid independent of the city’s unreliable power supply.

“Although it’s an emergency refuge, in Jackson, where power outages are common, it’s needed constantly,” Parry explained, noting work was originally set to begin on March 1 but is now delayed.

Many organizations still facing funding freezes had relied on grants from the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated billions for clean energy initiatives and climate change mitigation, or President Biden’s infrastructure measure, which funded various projects including transportation, energy, and water systems. Despite Republican opposition to the former, many supported the infrastructure legislation.

In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker reported that $117 million in federal funds withheld by the Trump administration threatens nearly 70 infrastructure projects and over 120 jobs. The state also cannot access more than $529 million from the EPA for various initiatives, including improvements to port facilities.

On Tuesday, a significant division of Montana’s natural resources and conservation department announced a halt to all projects funded by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management due to delays in federal reimbursements. Representatives from the Interior Department, overseeing land management, and the Agriculture Department, managing forestry services, confirmed that their funding decisions are under review for consistency with presidential directives.

In Ovando, Montana, Blackfoot Challenge, a nonprofit working to mitigate wildfire risks and drought impacts, reported that approximately 40% of its funding is currently frozen, according to spokesperson Jennifer Schoonen. The organization, which has a history of fostering collaboration among diverse political groups, relies heavily on long-term grants from federal agencies.

Back in Missouri, the Ritenour School District’s electric buses were also funded through the infrastructure bill. The district additionally purchased electric vehicle chargers but is unable to access the corresponding grant funds needed to compensate the contractor for their installation.

Superintendent Kilbride noted that the introduction of electric buses would reduce operational costs and eliminate the diesel exhaust that students encounter when boarding buses after school. While the district ordered 24 new buses, only three arrived before the grant freeze.

If the EPA does not release the funds for the remaining electric buses, the district may have to resort to purchasing lower-cost diesel buses instead. Such a decision would result in hiring six fewer teachers for the upcoming school year. Kilbride has sought assistance from a congressional representative and reached out to Missouri senators to address the funding issue.

“We need to see this project through,” he urged. “We just want the commitments made in good faith to be honored.”

Noah Weiland, Mattathias Schwartz, and Christopher Flavelle contributed reporting, while Julie Tate provided research.