Committee member requests one more analysis every meeting and my funding ends in May Defense

Make the list finite and written. At the end of the next meeting, out loud, say: "So the remaining items are A, B and C, and once those are done we're at defense." Then email a summary to everyone within 24 hours and ask them to correct anything you got wrong. Silence becomes agreement. The reason the requests never stop is that nobody has ever had to commit to a stopping point in writing, and each individual ask feels small to the person making it.

Ask him directly and neutrally what result would change his mind. If he can name one, do that check and you are done. If he cannot, you have learned this is taste rather than a threat to your findings, and you can handle it in a limitations paragraph.

The appendix is your friend. Do the cheapest defensible version of the request, put it in appendix C with two paragraphs on what it does and does not show, and cite it in one line in the main text. A referee-style request is satisfied by evidence you engaged with it, not by six weeks of new pipeline. The second dataset one I would push back on directly: that is a second paper, not a robustness check.

Say the funding date out loud, early, and to each member individually before the group meeting. "My last funded month is May, so I'm planning to defend in March. Does that seem workable to you?" People behave differently when the constraint is a calendar rather than your stress level.

Just tell him no, it is your dissertation.