The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in clean energy grants primarily based on the political affiliation of the recipient states, including California and 15 other states that supported Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. This admission was made in a recent court filing related to ongoing litigation over the terminated funding.

The Department of Energy (DOE) conceded that the decision to exclude grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” distinguishing between so-called “Blue States” and others. The agency also stated it did not consider the political or geographic impact on downstream recipients of the funds. Moreover, the DOE acknowledged that the differential treatment, which resulted in terminating grants in October 2025 in Blue States but not in other states, lacked a rational link to DOE’s past or current policy priorities.

This revelation contradicts earlier statements by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials, who had characterized the cancellations as judgments based on the projects’ ability to advance national energy goals or their economic viability. The project terminations included funding for battery manufacturing plants, hydrogen technology development, electric grid upgrades, and carbon capture initiatives.

The funding cuts, first announced in October 2025, affected 321 awards across 223 projects, with the DOE initially justifying the action by asserting many projects were not sufficiently beneficial or cost-effective. However, the recent court acknowledgement of political bias has intensified criticism from Democrats and environmental advocates.

Prominent Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, condemned the administration’s actions as “a corrupt abuse of power” that unfairly penalizes states that did not vote for President Trump. They argued that the terminations undermine job creation and harm working families already contending with high living costs. Both called on Republicans in Congress to join efforts to hold the administration accountable.

Environmental groups have echoed these concerns, highlighting the economic and environmental consequences of halting clean energy projects. Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, described the administration’s approach as “vindictive,” accusing it of disregarding the broader impacts on employment, pollution, and energy costs. She pointed to the administration’s simultaneous decision to channel nearly $3 billion toward fossil fuel projects while cutting offshore wind initiatives.

The DOE’s politically influenced grant cancellations have sparked multiple legal challenges. More than two dozen Democratic congressional members, led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, requested an investigation by the Energy Department’s acting inspector general. The department’s internal watchdog began an inquiry in December 2025.

Legal filings previously revealed that grant selections were influenced by whether recipients were located in states that traditionally support Democratic candidates. In the recent case Thakur vs. Trump, federal lawyers also acknowledged using criteria related to diversity, gender, and COVID-19 impacts to identify projects inconsistent with the priorities of the Trump administration. The administration’s approach to clean energy funding continues to face scrutiny as litigation unfolds.