The Trump administration acknowledged in recent court filings that it canceled more than $7.5 billion in federal clean energy grants awarded during the Biden administration based largely on political considerations. Officials admitted the funding was terminated “based solely” on whether recipient states were represented by Democrats and had voted for Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in the 2024 election, rather than for any programmatic or performance-based reasons.

The grants at issue involved a range of innovative energy projects across multiple states. While the Energy Department initially recommended canceling over 600 Biden-era grants, the White House ultimately ended funding for only 284 projects, almost exclusively located in states favoring the Democratic ticket in the 2024 election and represented by two Democratic senators.

This selective cancellation decision contradicted the Energy Department’s initial list, which included grants in states with Republican leadership and support for former President Trump. Federal officials conceded that the reductions were not based on cost, statutory direction, or the effectiveness of the projects. The move was part of a broader Trump administration effort to pressure Democratic lawmakers during a government funding standoff, which involved threats to cut funding for so-called “Democrat agencies.”

Affected projects included electrical grid upgrades in California and Oregon; methane emission reduction efforts in Colorado; and initiatives to develop clean hydrogen fuel hubs in California and the Pacific Northwest. Many recipients of the canceled grants subsequently filed lawsuits to challenge the administration’s actions.

The disclosure emerged during litigation initiated by California researchers and others contesting the cancellations across multiple federal agencies, including the Departments of Transportation and Health and Human Services. The Trump administration agreed to provide these details as part of a legal settlement to avoid a lengthy discovery process, which could have compelled the release of additional internal documents possibly detrimental to the government’s case.

The court filings appeared to conflict with previous congressional testimony from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who had maintained that no political factors influenced the grant cancellations. A spokesperson for the Energy Department stated that the initial grant review was conducted without political bias and suggested that Secretary Wright’s statements referred to the timing of public announcements rather than the decision-making process itself.

Earlier court rulings had already found that political motivations played a central role in some grant cancellations, with judges ordering the restoration of several funding awards. The current revelations provide a more extensive view of the administration’s approach and have drawn criticism from Democratic congressional leaders.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio condemned the admissions as a blatant misuse of federal resources for political retribution. They accused the administration of punishing states and workers simply because they supported the opposing political party, describing the tactic as an “outright un-American” abuse of power.

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for further comment. The developments underscore ongoing concerns about the potential for increased political influence over federally allocated funds under new regulatory proposals that could grant the administration broader authority in managing grant disbursements.