Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of politically targeting clean-energy funding after federal court filings showed officials recommended canceling grants based solely on whether recipients operated in states won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
The disclosure appeared in a July 15 court filing tied to a class action lawsuit challenging the cancellations. According to the filing, the U.S. Department of Energy sent the Office of Management and Budget a list of more than 600 grants recommended for termination. Officials selected projects located in states that Harris carried and that elected two senators who caucus with Democrats.
The Office of Management and Budget ultimately canceled 284 grants in October 2025. The affected awards represented several billion dollars in federal clean-energy funding, according to court records.
Plaintiffs, including a group of University of California researchers, argue the administration based the cancellations on politics rather than the merits of the projects. They seek to overturn the decision through the lawsuit.
Additionally, the Energy Department acknowledged in the filing that grant selection depended entirely on a state’s political identity. The department accepted that officials chose grants solely because recipients operated in what it described as blue states instead of non-blue states.
The filing marked one of the clearest acknowledgments by the administration that political considerations influenced grant recommendations. It also provided new evidence in a broader legal fight over federal spending decisions.
The reported approach aligns with President Donald Trump’s wider second-term effort to confront political opponents. His administration has repeatedly attempted to redirect or withhold federal funding from Democratic-led states.
Read more: SuperCritical wins DOE licence to commercialize seawater uranium extraction
Read more: Clearwater River Dene Nation to launch Highway 955 checkpoint as uranium exploration grows
DHS denied political influence on disaster funding
Earlier this year, officials attempted to freeze roughly USD$10 billion in funding for social service programs across five Democratic-led states. The administration later abandoned that effort before it took effect.
Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency released more than USD$5 billion in delayed disaster assistance during February. However, the agency excluded several Democratic-led states where Trump had publicly clashed with governors.
The Department of Homeland Security denied that politics influenced those disaster funding decisions.
Additionally, the spending disputes unfolded as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought pursued broader authority over federal spending decisions. That effort accelerated after sweeping fraud allegations emerged in Minnesota late last year.
The New York Times first reported details of the July 15 court filing. The filing later became a focal point in the lawsuit as plaintiffs argued the administration intentionally targeted politically unfriendly states.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the admission, calling it an unprecedented example of political retaliation. He argued the administration admitted it stripped funding from working families to punish states that did not support Trump during the election.
Schumer also described the decision as driven by personal vengeance rather than public policy. He made those remarks in a post on X.
Furthermore, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland called the funding cuts a betrayal of the country and urged the administration to restore the grants immediately. He argued officials deliberately spared Republican-led states while cutting funding to Democratic-led ones because they recognized the programs’ importance.
.
