DOGE Is Creating New Grant Opportunities for Companies in 2025 - Here’s How You Can Benefit
“As federal grants dry up under the weight of DOGE’s restructuring, private foundations are shifting their gaze and their dollars toward new players. Chief among them are for-profit companies that know how to move fast, solve real problems, and scale what works. What used to be a philanthropic world centered on nonprofits is rapidly opening to mission-aligned businesses that can deliver measurable impact without the bureaucracy. For companies that already operate lean, prioritize measurable outcomes, and can rapidly pilot or scale new initiatives, this shift means access to grants that were historically off-limits.”
The DOGE Overhaul
On January 20, 2025, a new chapter in federal governance began. That’s when the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was formally launched under the President’s Executive Office, and with it, the most sweeping shake-up of U.S. administrative infrastructure in recent memory. Led by Elon Musk, who is currently a Senior Advisor to the President, DOGE was created not only to reduce costs. Its deeper purpose, according to Vice President JD Vance, is to bring federal bureaucracy firmly under executive control. What’s followed has been fast, controversial, and transformative.
In a matter of months, DOGE has restructured the flow of public dollars, unraveling long-established federal funding systems that thousands of agencies, nonprofits, and institutions depend on. What’s happening is as much about fiscal restraint as it is a full reset of how power, policy, and money move through Washington.
Before diving into the fallout, it’s worth understanding how public funding typically works. The U.S. grant ecosystem moves through three primary channels: federal, state, and private philanthropic. Federal grants, often the most substantial, are awarded through agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Education, and USAID. These funds support core programs in public health, research, infrastructure, and global development. State-level grants usually mirror federal priorities, channeled through state agencies to fund everything from education to local service delivery. Then there’s the private philanthropic sector, which consists of independent institutions that award billions each year toward missions ranging from climate change to criminal justice.
Each of these funding streams operates with different rules and oversight, but together, they form the backbone of the nation’s civic and scientific progress. In disrupting federal flow at the top, DOGE has knocked this entire system out of alignment.
The most immediate fallout came from USAID. According to Health Policy Watch and confirmed by internal federal memos, DOGE abruptly canceled around 83% of the agency’s international aid programs. USAID’s workforce collapsed in just weeks from over 10,000 staff and contractors to fewer than 300. Projects were shut down midstream, and programs, whether life-saving or color revolution-inducing, went dark in over 100 countries. Former USAID leaders, including Andrew Natsios, called the cuts reckless, while experts like Mike Benz called for careful evaluation instead of indiscriminate dismantling.
The Department of Education wasn’t spared, either. As of March 2025, over 2,000 staff had been laid off, gutting the department’s internal workforce. That same month, $900 million was stripped from the Institute of Education Sciences, the federal engine for education research. According to internal sources cited in Forbes, the agency had been ordered to halt all new contracts and justify every existing one through the “DOGE spreadsheet”, a tool mandated across agencies to determine whether existing grants align with the administration’s evolving priorities.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog agency created after the 2008 financial crisis, faced its own crisis of survival. In February 2025, every one of its 1,700 employees was ordered to stand down pending DOGE-led review. Though a U.S. Appeals Court later ruled that the administration couldn’t dismantle the agency entirely, the Bureau’s functionality was already hobbled. Legal experts and consumer advocates alike warned that the rollback left millions of Americans exposed to predatory lending and unchecked financial misconduct.
Even the Social Security Administration, a department typically shielded from political interference due to its central role in distributing benefits, faced a sweeping internal downsizing. According to the Wall Street Journal, DOGE authorized the closure of regional offices and eliminated roughly 7,000 positions through early retirement and buyouts.
These agency-level shifts are part of a broader strategy. Under an executive order issued February 26, 2025, all federal departments are now required to submit detailed, auditable records for every contract, grant, and loan disbursed. These justifications must be made public and prioritized based on their alignment with new federal goals. The resulting “freeze effect” has all but halted new awards while departments scramble to assess and reframe their portfolios. According to internal Department of Energy memos leaked in March, political appointees, not program staff, are now tasked with reviewing grant efficacy.
This constitutes a full-blown Federal grant system reconfiguration. Agencies that once distributed billions in grants across healthcare, education, research, and development are now stuck in limbo, operating under a new presumption: that all funding must be justified or wound down. The usual rhythms of public investment, application cycles, peer reviews, and program renewals have been overtaken by spreadsheets and top-down decrees.
Supporters of DOGE argue this reset is long overdue and that it’s about rooting out inefficiencies and reining in bloated spending. But even among those sympathetic to fiscal reform, there’s growing concern about the cost of chaos. Institutions that rely on stable, transparent federal funding, from research universities to community health networks, are now scrambling for alternatives, including private foundation grants.
Implications for Grant Seekers
DOGE disrupted agency operations and pulled the rug out from under an entire funding system. As federal grants vanish or freeze mid-cycle, organizations that once relied on predictable government support are left scrambling. From small community nonprofits to research universities, everyone’s chasing new lifelines.
The numbers tell the story. In Pennsylvania, the Humanities Council lost 60% of its annual budget, about $1.2 million, overnight after DOGE halted its NEH funding. Axios reports the organization had to seek emergency relief just to stay afloat and even considered legal action to avoid shutting down. That scramble isn’t unique. In Wisconsin, the state’s NEH affiliate saw 85% of its funding disappear. In North Carolina, it was $1.6 million - gone. Programs across nearly all 100 counties were at risk. These aren’t isolated cases. They’re snapshots of a larger collapse.
What happens when the federal tap runs dry? The answer, so far, is a stampede into philanthropy. Private foundations are now fielding a wave of applications not seen since the height of the COVID-19 crisis. Some are rising to the moment. In March 2025, the MacArthur Foundation announced it would raise its payout rate from 5% to 6% for two years, unlocking an additional $150 million in grants. “The cliff of funding from federal programs has sent budgets underwater in field after field,” said MacArthur Foundation President John Palfrey.
The volume is already pushing many to rethink how they give. Foundations that once prioritized mission fit alone are now broadening the lens. The old system, anchored by federal reliability, is being replaced by one in which private foundations set the pace, define the metrics, and decide who moves forward. As DOGE continues to reshape the landscape, organizations will have to evolve or risk being left behind.
For-Profit Entities Rising to the Occasion
As federal grants dry up under the weight of DOGE’s restructuring, private foundations are shifting their gaze and their dollars toward new players. Chief among them: for-profit companies that know how to move fast, solve real problems, and scale what works. What used to be a philanthropic world centered on nonprofits is rapidly opening to mission-aligned businesses that can deliver measurable impact without the bureaucracy. For companies that already operate lean, prioritize measurable outcomes, and can rapidly pilot or scale new initiatives, this shift means access to grants that were historically off-limits.
This shift is already in motion. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, has outlined clear pathways to partner with for-profit companies, especially in health tech, education, and financial inclusion. The rationale is straightforward: these companies bring a level of speed, precision, and execution that traditional nonprofits often can’t match. In this new reality, funders are no longer just looking for partners with passion; they want partners who can perform. And for-profit companies that can speak the language of impact while maintaining business discipline are proving to be among the most attractive partners in this emerging landscape.
Driving this evolution is the rapid growth of public-private partnerships in social impact. As federal support recedes across strategic areas like climate, health, and workforce development, foundations and state agencies are stepping up, often together, to back businesses that can close the gap. At the heart of this shift is a growing recognition of what for-profits bring to the table: speed, adaptability, and laser focus on outcomes. Many are already operating as for-profit social impact models, designed from the ground up to measure what matters. According to research from the Bridgespan Group, private funders are increasingly backing firms that align with the values of impact investing for social enterprises built to deliver results and revenue without compromising either.
Philanthropy itself is evolving to meet this moment. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, structured as a limited liability company, can move fluidly between grantmaking, advocacy, and direct investment. That model reflects a wider shift: the rise of philanthropic capital for businesses that blur traditional boundaries between giving and growth. These aren’t either/or models. They’re both/and.
That’s why the demand for accountability is rising, too. Funders now expect businesses to have more than just a good idea. They expect a full framework for evaluating social impact in business ventures. That means having a theory of change, clear metrics, and a strategy to communicate outcomes. For those entering the space through program-related investments (PRIs) or looking to attract mission-related investments (MRIs) from foundation endowments, it’s not enough to claim impact - you have to prove it.
In this recalibrated environment, the old rules are falling away. Foundations are no longer asking if a company is a nonprofit. They’re asking: Are you solving the problem? Can you scale it? Can you show me the return, on both mission and money? For the for-profit sector that can answer “yes,” the doors are opening. Fast.
As DOGE redraws the federal map, private philanthropy is reimagining its own, and for-profit innovators who bring clarity, creativity, and credibility are being welcomed into rooms they were once shut out of, not as a backup plan but as a new kind of leader.
How For-Profits Can Capitalize
As private foundations reassess their roles in a shaken ecosystem, for-profit entities have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enter the grant funding arena. But success requires more than compelling pitch decks. It demands precise alignment with funder missions, rigorous reporting standards, and real traction in the areas where the federal government has pulled back.
According to the Mission Investors Exchange, foundations across the U.S. are increasingly turning to tools like mission-related investments (MRIs) and program-related investments (PRIs) to fund for-profit businesses and start-ups aligned with their social objectives. PRIs allow foundations to make below-market investments in companies that directly advance their mission, while MRIs are typically drawn from endowment capital and target market-rate returns with purpose-driven impact. For-profit entities seeking to access these pathways must show how their business models generate measurable value beyond profit, and how that value aligns with philanthropic priorities. This opens the door to both capital and long-term partnerships with institutions eager to fund innovation in areas like rural health access, educational technology, sustainable infrastructure, and deep tech.
To earn that capital credibly, companies must adopt frameworks that speak the language of funders. According to the Global Impact Investing Network, high-performing social businesses use tools like the IRIS+ system or SROI (Social Return on Investment) to assess how their programs generate outcomes relative to cost. These tools are increasingly essential for foundations under pressure to report performance to boards and public watchdogs, especially in a landscape with fewer federal benchmarks. Companies that proactively invest in evaluating social impact in business ventures are proving that they can deliver results and understand the value of transparency in complex funding environments.
In this moment of transition, the need for alternative funding sources post-federal cuts is a strategic necessity. And it’s not just major enterprises that stand to benefit; early-stage startups, B Corps, and mission-driven SMEs are increasingly competitive in this space when they bring sharp operational models and a clear theory of impact. For-profit companies able to address funding gaps in areas like arts and culture, global development, and education research are already being invited into grantmaking conversations. As government contracts dry up, many of these services still need delivery mechanisms, and foundations are increasingly willing to partner with private entities that offer cost-effective and tech-enabled solutions with clear accountability.
This is not about opportunism. It is about redefinition. In an ecosystem that is rapidly decentering the federal government, the most effective for-profit actors are those who align mission with method and ambition with evaluation. With the right grant strategy and alignment, for-profits have a real opportunity to build recurring funding streams, increase visibility with funders, and become embedded contributors to long-term social impact ecosystems. These companies will survive this transition, and they will lead it.
