Two right-leaning policy groups say they have identified 249 federal grant records totaling $230 million tied to "intersectionality" ideology, and they want the Trump administration to cut off every dollar.
The Defense of Freedom Institute and the Legal Insurrection Foundation released a 23-page report cataloging federal-assistance spending that used the keyword "intersectionality" in grant descriptions. Of the $230 million flagged, $140 million has already been spent and another $90 million remains earmarked. Spending peaked at $80.1 million in a single year, 2023, deep into the Biden presidency, and roughly 100 of the 249 flagged grants appear to still be active, with some performance periods stretching as far as 2030.
The groups are now pressing President Trump to take executive action against intersectionality-related funding, much as his administration previously moved against grants tied to critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Funding levels for the flagged grants have already dropped under Trump, but the organizations argue that an explicit policy directive is needed to close what they call a loophole.
The report names specific awards that illustrate how the money was distributed. New Hampshire's Department of Health received $10.99 million for cancer prevention and control programs that, per the grant language, targeted "populations that experience health disparities across the cancer continuum and experience intersectionality of gender and income inequality." The University of California, San Francisco, collected $7.53 million for an Asian American cancer cohort study. New York University pulled in $8.16 million for a "National Center for Engagement in Diabetes Equity Research."
Drexel University landed the largest single award highlighted in the report: $14.25 million for a program titled "Catalyzing Systemic Change at Drexel University to Support Diverse Faculty in Health Disparities." That grant title alone captures the concern animating the report, federal dollars earmarked not simply for medical research, but for reshaping institutional culture along ideological lines.
The report contended that the practice of ranking people "according to ideological assumptions about oppression and privilege based on group membership" is fundamentally flawed. It also raised a pointed warning: that wrapping grants in intersectionality language allows recipients to continue "unlawful identity-based decision-making" while "appearing more technical and less explicit."
William Jacobson, a Cornell Law School professor who founded the Legal Insurrection Foundation, framed the findings in blunt terms. He told The Post:
"Race-obsessed 'Intersectionality' doctrine provides the toxic fuel for radical anarchist groups like the Turtle Island Liberation Front, and is the mothers' milk for destructive anti-American and anti-capitalist agendas that dominate campuses."
Jacobson said his group was surprised by the scale of the spending.
"Amazingly, we have discovered that the federal government has been funding the Intersectionality movement. This has to stop."
He drew a direct line from the administration's earlier moves on DEI and CRT to the action he wants next.
"Having eliminated CRT and DEI from federal grants, the Trump administration should close the Intersectionality loophole and stop federal grantmaking for programs that promote Intersectionality."
Robert Eitel, president and co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, echoed the urgency. He argued that the problem is structural, not incidental.
"This report shows just how deeply intersectional ideology has become embedded in the federal grant-making apparatus."
Eitel went further, challenging federal agencies to align their grant-making with congressional intent rather than academic fashion.
"Federal agencies must ensure that grants are used to advance the purposes Congress authorized and address real public needs, not bankroll an ideological framework designed to divide Americans into categories of privilege and oppression."
That distinction, between grants that serve a genuine public purpose and grants that launder ideology through bureaucratic language, sits at the center of the report's argument. The groups are not claiming that cancer research or diabetes studies are inherently wasteful. They are claiming that attaching intersectionality frameworks to those programs redirects taxpayer money toward a political agenda that Congress never voted to fund.
The timeline matters. Grant spending on intersectionality-related programs was propelled during the Biden era, peaking at $80.1 million in 2023. Funding levels have declined under Trump, but the pipeline has not been shut off. Roughly 100 active grants remain on the books, and some carry performance periods that do not expire until 2030, meaning taxpayer dollars committed years ago will continue flowing unless the administration intervenes.
The $90 million in earmarked but not-yet-spent funds represents another pressure point. Whether that money has been formally obligated or simply set aside is not clear from the report. But its existence means the federal government is still positioned to write checks for intersectionality programs even as the political winds have shifted.
Several questions remain unanswered. Which specific federal agencies issued the 249 flagged grants, and in what proportions? Did the groups search a single federal database or multiple systems? Have any of the named grant recipients, New Hampshire, UCSF, NYU, Drexel, responded to the findings? And what precise executive action are the two organizations requesting: an executive order, new agency guidance, or something else?
None of those gaps diminish the core finding. A quarter-billion dollars in federal money flowed to programs built around a framework that sorts Americans by race, class, and perceived privilege, and most of it moved during a single administration that made that framework a governing priority.
When the government stops funding ideology and starts funding results, taxpayers will know the loophole is finally closed.
