The Trump administration acknowledged in recent court documents that it canceled over $7.5 billion in Biden-era federal clean energy grants primarily on political grounds, specifically targeting projects located in states that voted for the Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, in the 2024 election. The disclosure challenges previous administration claims that the cancellations aimed to protect taxpayer funds from waste.
According to filings submitted this month, officials admitted that the decision to terminate approximately 284 grants was based “solely” on political criteria, focusing on states with Democratic representation and voting patterns favoring Harris. This contradicted earlier statements portraying the cuts as fiscally responsible adjustments. The grants targeted included projects aimed at upgrading electrical grids, reducing methane leaks, and developing clean hydrogen fuel hubs in states such as California, Oregon, and Colorado.
The Energy Department had initially recommended canceling over 600 Biden-era grants as part of a review but only terminated a subset concentrated in Democratic-leaning states. Federal attorneys conceded that no programmatic, statutory, or performance-related factors motivated the selected cancellations. In contrast, grants in states with Republican leadership and that voted for Donald Trump remained intact, despite initial recommendations for their termination.
This pattern coincided with a broader White House strategy in October 2025, when budget office director Russell T. Vought publicly announced cuts targeting “Green New Scam” funding to Democratic-leaning states amid budget disputes that threatened government shutdowns. The administration’s actions sparked lawsuits from affected recipients seeking to restore funding.
The revelations emerged from a lawsuit filed by researchers in California challenging multiple federal agencies, including the Energy Department, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services, over funding cancellations. In an attempt to avoid extensive discovery that might uncover additional damaging information, the government agreed to provide these details. Subsequent filings indicated that other agencies used politically charged keywords tied to the president’s priorities when reviewing grants.
Energy Department spokesperson Brent Dieterich stated that the department’s initial grant review was nonpolitical and maintained that Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s congressional testimony—denying political considerations influenced decisions—referred to distinct aspects of the review and announcement processes. Nonetheless, the department had previously admitted in other court cases that politics was a “primary reason” for some cancellations, with judges ruling that those terminations were improper.
The acknowledgment has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers. Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio condemned the politically motivated grant cuts as an abuse of power that harmed job creation and penalized states based on political allegiances. They characterized the administration’s admission as “an outright un-American” misuse of government authority.
This episode underscores concerns over a pending set of regulations under the Trump administration that would expand presidential control over more than $1 trillion in federal grants annually. Critics warn that the new rules could institutionalize partisan decision-making in federal grant allocation, potentially using taxpayer-supported programs as political leverage. The White House has not responded to requests for comment on the recent court filings.