Trump Administration Admits Canceling Clean Energy Grants Based on State Politics

Court Filings Confirm Political Criteria for Grant Cancellations

In a significant legal shift, the Department of Energy has conceded that the political identity of a state was the deciding factor in the termination of 284 federal research grants. Government lawyers confirmed in a court filing that, with one exception, all canceled projects were located in states that awarded their electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and have two Democratic-caucusing senators. Jeff Novak, the principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Energy, wrote that the office of Management and Budget identified these 284 specific grants for termination in October 2025.

The admission came in response to a lawsuit filed last June by a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers challenging various federal agencies that halted Biden-era funding. Novak wrote that the decision to cancel these grants was not based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor. He further noted that the administration accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, or whether the recipient’s location was in a “Blue State.”

Discrepancy Between Administration Claims and Internal Documents

This disclosure stands in direct contrast to earlier public defenses of the policy. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials had previously asserted that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or had other problems that made them a poor investment of taxpayer dollars. The Energy Department had announced last October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated, claiming they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.

Energy Department stated on Friday that the report of the admission is a misrepresentation of the court filing. The spokesperson claimed that none of the termination decisions were based on political considerations and that the acknowledgment in the filing was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves.

The administration’s internal records show a broader review process that initially identified 624 grants for potential termination. Novak confirmed that 340 grants proposed for termination were ultimately not canceled. All such grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to President Trump in the 2024 election or has at least one Republican-caucusing Senator, Novak wrote of the unterminated grants.

Impact on Clean Energy Infrastructure and Regional Funding

The cancellations have drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who argue the administration has “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish families for their political views. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, high-ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees, issued a joint statement: “This administration has now admitted in court what has long been obvious: it terminated nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects for no reason other than the fact that the states they were in did not vote for the president in the 2024 election.”

Kaptur and Murray called the actions outright un-American and stated that it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power. They called on congressional Republicans to join them in holding the administration accountable for the President’s failure to look out for all Americans.

The impact has been felt locally as well. In New Mexico, the New Mexico Political Report noted in October 2025 that the White House had cut over $192 million in federal funds from state projects, including efforts at New Mexico Technology and a PNM clean energy project. At the time, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, described the decision as nakedly political, unhinged and unlawful, noting that Congress had already approved and funded these projects.