Greenwich Singled out for "Wasteful" Use of Federal Funding

In its latest budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2027, the Trump Administration has intensified its efforts to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, specifically naming Greenwich and Waterford, Connecticut, as examples of "wasteful" spending.

The 92-page White House document argues that the program has morphed from a tool for rural credit into a "pork-barrel" fund for affluent areas. By highlighting Greenwich—the crown jewel of Connecticut’s "Gold Coast"—the Administration is making a calculated move to question why a town with a AAA credit rating and the lowest mill rate in the state receives federal "handouts."

The Administration's targeting of Greenwich isn't necessarily a claim of mismanagement, but a declaration that these are local responsibilities. The move serves as the justification for a 13% cut to HUD’s total budget and the complete elimination of the $3.3 billion CDBG program nationwide.

The View from Greenwich Town officials and local non-profits tell a very different story. While Greenwich is undeniably wealthy, proponents of the funding argue that the town’s high cost of living masks a significant population of "hidden" vulnerable residents.

Greenwich receives approximately $750,000 annually, and local administrators emphasize that 95% of beneficiaries are low-to-moderate-income residents—well above the federal 70% requirement. Key programs currently supported by these funds include:

• YWCA Domestic Abuse Services: Providing critical safety nets for victims.

• Food Banks: Addressing rising food insecurity (which hit 14.3% in CT this year).

• Greenwich Alliance for Education: Supporting low-income students taking middle school field trips.

• Coffee for Good: A shop providing paid job training for people with developmental disabilities.

• Entrepreneurial Training: Targeted at income-eligible young women in public schools.

Local Defense First Selectman Fred Camillo dismissed the criticism, defending the town's management and stewardship, noting that HUD approves every dollar allocated. Tyler Fairbairn, the town’s grants administrator, noted that the "wasteful" language in the budget appeared to be a "cut and paste" from previous years.

Between the Lines: Defending the town’s stewardship of these funds or dismissing the "wasteful" label as "cut and paste" will not win this PR battle. To the rest of the country, the central question remains: Why does the town with the lowest mill rate and the highest concentration of wealth in Connecticut need federal "handouts" at all? We are an easy target for these cuts.