A divided federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration improperly terminated billions of dollars in funds meant to boost clean energy projects. The decision restores an April 2025 injunction against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's move to end these grants, which were awarded during the Biden administration with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Takeaways
A divided federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration improperly terminated billions in climate grants. The decision restores an injunction against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's move to end these funds, which were part of Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
- Federal appeals court rules against Trump administration on climate funds
- Decision restores $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants
- EPA accused nonprofits of mismanagement and froze billions in Citibank account
- Ruling puts on hold for Supreme Court review request
- Case highlights legal battles over Biden-era climate policies
⚖
▼Source Claims Check
1 Difference FoundAll 4 publishers report consistent facts across 2 key claims. 1 point of difference noted.
| Claim | Status | Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fund Amount Frozen | 1 Difference | Al Jazeera specifies $20bn; other outlets say 'billions' | ▼ |
| Court Ruling | Broad Agreement | $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund restored by court | |
| Program Dismantling | Broad Agreement | EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin trying to dismantle the program. |
Fund Amount Frozen
▼Al Jazeera specifies $20bn; other outlets say 'billions'
Court Ruling
Broad Agreement$27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund restored by court
Program Dismantling
Broad AgreementEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin trying to dismantle the program.
This analysis is AI-generated and may not perfectly represent each source's reporting. Always read the original articles for full context.
The closely divided ruling by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a loss for the Trump administration in one of its earliest efforts to dismantle former President Joe Biden’s climate initiatives. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a 'green bank,' is a $27 billion congressionally authorized program that provided money to nonprofits like Climate United Fund and Coalition for Green Capital. These groups were expected to make loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings, and transportation.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the nonprofits of mismanagement and potential fraud, freezing roughly $20 billion that had been placed in a Citibank account for the program. The groups disputed any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the Trump administration broke the law and violated the Constitution by not spending money authorized by Congress.
The decision will be put on hold for several days to give the Environmental Protection Agency time to ask the Supreme Court to step in. The EPA said it is reviewing its next steps, which could include an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawyers for the nonprofits did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The ruling adds a layer of complexity due to President Trump’s tax and spending bill last year, which repealed part of the law that established the green bank and rescinded money that hadn’t already been obligated to its recipients. The court's decision highlights ongoing legal battles over climate policies and federal funding.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been trying to dismantle the program, saying it doesn’t align with his agency’s priorities. In a video posted on social media last February, Zeldin described the fund as an example of government waste, claiming that roughly $20 billion was parked at Citibank and awarded to eight entities responsible for distributing the money. The organizations denied any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the administration was illegally withholding money already approved by Congress.
The majority of judges said the EPA’s attempt to terminate the grants and claw back the money “based solely on a policy disagreement” likely violated the Inflation Reduction Act. It also noted that the agency hadn’t provided assurance that it would leave the funds untouched if the injunction were lifted.
How this summary was created
This summary synthesizes reporting from 4 independent publishers using AI. All sources are cited and linked below. NewsBalance is a news aggregator and media literacy tool, not a news publisher. AI-generated content may contain errors or inaccuracies — always verify important information with the original sources.