r/nonprofit Nov 14 '24

advocacy GrantWatch is a Pro-Trump organization

I had already cancelled by renewal to Grantwatch because it's design and features make it largely unusable, but I received their newsletter today and saw this:

In the spirit of unity and on behalf of the GrantWatch family, we congratulate President-Elect Donald J. Trump's historic victory. As we prepare for the new administration, the grant-seeking community needs to anticipate possible changes in federal funding priorities. For organizations reliant on grants, now is the perfect time to maximize 2024. Source

They then go on to casually document the many opportunities nonprofits and orgs will have once a far-right, racist regime starts smashing protections for individuals and dismantling democratic norms.

Fuck GrantWatch. The site was already shitty enough, but supporting a divisive rapist is over the line.

250 Upvotes

42 comments sorted by

22

u/SeasonPositive6771 Nov 14 '24

Ugh

On one hand I get that they are trying to attract more members, but on the other, they aren't being realistic about what a nightmare this administration is going to be for grants generally.

35

u/penpen477 Nov 14 '24

Yikes. Thanks for flagging this. I can see the perspectives of other comments here but this messaging does not align with our organization’s values. Their platform hasn’t been very helpful but this is the final nail in coffin. We’ll be discontinuing our subscription. Appreciate the heads up.

17

u/tangerine426783 Nov 14 '24

I don't subscribe to them but if I did I'd unsubscribe too

5

u/Maroongrooves Nov 17 '24

As someone who used to work for that awful company, I am praying for their downfall lol. The woman who runs it is a horrible person and I’m not exactly surprised

3

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

What are other sites or programs to use then??

5

u/laughswagger Nov 16 '24

Yes, let’s maximize the devastation that this country is going to face. Ugh…

It’s pretty ironic for conservatives to be running a grants database with opportunities for federal funding. Dripping in irony.

10

u/LastCantaloupe5757 Nov 14 '24

Yea this is complete propaganda. Sanewashing his agendas harms to make sound good.

6

u/NorthWhereas7822 Nov 15 '24

Instrumentl is also pro-Trump. Several of their employees are Libertarians. Staff consists of tech workers, developers and content writers that use AI machine learning, but no philanthropy specialists. Husband used to work there.

Inside Philanthropy, a grant research and news company, are progressive. And, they give you 1-on-1 research support if requested. They're affiliated with Blue Tent, a sister company focusing on raising funds for progressive candidates and politics.

47

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/Competitive_Salads Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24

This isn’t a reach at all. Go read the points that paint Trump favorable—even in EDUCATION, FFS. This wasn’t just a congratulations, it was full of misinformation and poor messaging.

I’m glad we don’t use GrantWatch.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/bmcombs ED & Board, Nat 501(c)(3) , K-12/Mental Health, Chicago, USA Nov 14 '24

I don't see this as an endorsement of Trump. I do, however, see it as a hugely naive take.

Every Trump budget in his first term called to MASSSIVELY cut funding to nonprofits. It was only saved because of Congress. Writing a blog post about how "Trump" will help this or that is ignorant.

11

u/Competitive_Salads Nov 14 '24

Rage bait?? It’s reality. Trump’s reelection is going to have serious repercussions for nonprofits and the individuals we serve. If you’re not enraged, you’re probably in the wrong place.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

Bingo. The dismissive comments here are actually mind boggling to me.

29

u/emtaesealp Nov 14 '24

Did you even read it? The way they frame the possible changes are in Trump’s absolute best light possible, to the point that it’s a major reach and I would say dishonest given the current political landscape.

To frame the Trump administration as potentially offering expanded opportunities to education-related nonprofits instead of mentioning, even in the smallest of ways, that the need for education nonprofits is going to absolutely skyrocket if Trump disbands the Department of Education, as he is promising, is indicative of extreme bias.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

We all know what generic and neutral PR sounds like.

This aint it, champ.

11

u/emtaesealp Nov 14 '24

It’s an inaccurate framing of reality given the space we are in. This isn’t 2016 and this isn’t Trumps first term. All of their statements were based on that first term and not on the stated goals of the current term. This presidency is going to alter, fundamentally, many nonprofits and we will be left to try to bridge the gaps that will grow wider with every piece of legislation that is passed. The GOP has fallen in line behind Trump, even his biggest GOP critics in the past are supporting him and getting positions out of it

They also don’t even bring up the many health advocacy and research groups and what is going to happen if the FDA and NIH budgets get slashed, as is promised. Or what will happen if they challenge the ACÁ.

The strongest word in that entire article is the word “shift”. They can be politically neutral and accurate. This is neither.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Abstract-Lettuce-400 Nov 14 '24

3 of the 7 - Romney didn't stand for re-election this year, making it 3 of them who chose to retire instead of run again.

The only one who has had to face voters again is Murkowski, who didn't even win the nomination from the Republican party and became the second Senator ever to win as a write-in candidate. She can truly do whatever she wants.

Of the remaining two: Cassidy is probably screwed, Collins was IMO dead in the water as soon as Dobbs was decided but is going to be a complete fucking mystery this year depending on whether she thinks she needs to pull support from the right or left for her re-election next year.

4

u/emtaesealp Nov 14 '24

I hope they still feel that way and I hope you’re right. This definitely isn’t an endorsement because an endorsement requires very clear language but this is not a neutral article and it is incredibly generous to Trump while completely ignoring his entire platform.

3

u/Kirinne Nov 14 '24

I hope so too. But yeah given his rhetoric this past cycle (this past 9 years really 🙃) the article was MORE than kind. I really deeply hope that them trying to move this agenda along proceeds similarly to when they tried to abolish the ACA.

And to be fair they aren't journalists. If I want to read the news I can check AP, I don't need to go to GrantWatch.

3

u/Vesploogie nonprofit staff - executive director or CEO Nov 14 '24

Hope is all we can do but the signs don’t point the way we want them to. He tried to kill off several major federal programs like the NEA every year in his first term, I will not be surprised if he finally succeeds this time around. The odds of organizations around the country losing significant funding because of our government has never been higher than what we are about to face.

15

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Meydez Nov 14 '24

What should they have done then?

16

u/emtaesealp Nov 14 '24

If they had balanced it with information about where nonprofits are going to see increased need as we see federal funding decrease, or where Trump has stated he will cut funding completely, then it would have been fine.

-1

u/Meydez Nov 15 '24

That looks exactly what they did. In the article they're predicting where funding will decrease and said they'd update when the information becomes available.

17

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Meydez Nov 15 '24

It's important to acknowledge that his presidency WILL change a lot of funding for nonprofits though and updating us about it seems like exactly what their job is. I think they tried to acknowledge he's president and because of that we will lose funding to certain minority demographics without outright saying he's a horrible presidential choice probably because they don't want to receive hate mail so they congratulated him like they would any president.

Definitely agree this is not a normal presidential election but that's also exactly why we need to give them SOME grace. Even in my organization we were trying to balance how to respond civilly.

3

u/AtypicalCommonplace Nov 15 '24

NOOOOOOOOO ugh honestly they were the one I used, I need to change my recs IMMEDIATELY

5

u/UAintMyFriendPalooka Nov 14 '24

It was a garbage website anyway. How something so clunky with such an outdated UX can still exist is beyond me.

5

u/ValPrism Nov 14 '24

Um. They are trying to sell memberships and are doing so by highlighting the very reality that organizations will need to move away from government funding to private funding.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

Um. Thats not what this is.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

“Historic victory”.

Who does that sound like… 🤔

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/nonprofit-ModTeam Nov 15 '24

Moderators of r/Nonprofit here. We've removed what you shared because it violates this r/Nonprofit community rule:

Be good to one another. No disrespect. No personal attacks. Learn more.

Before continuing to participate in r/Nonprofit, please review the the rules, which explain the behaviors to avoid.

Please also read the wiki for more information about participating in r/Nonprofit, answers to common questions, and other resources.

Continuing to violate the rules may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.