The Trump administration has acknowledged in federal court that it canceled billions of dollars in clean energy grants “based solely” on whether recipient states supported President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, a concession that is fueling legal challenges and intensifying accusations that the administration improperly used federal funding to reward political allies and punish opponents.
The admission came in court filings defending the Department of Energy’s decision to terminate 284 Biden-era energy grants worth more than $7.5 billion after a government shutdown last fall. Government lawyers argued that considering partisan politics when distributing or canceling grants is constitutionally permissible and can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy objectives.
Court filings acknowledge political considerations
According to the filings, the White House Office of Management and Budget made the final determination on which grants would be canceled after the Energy Department initially reviewed more than 600 awards.
The administration ultimately terminated grants located almost exclusively in states that voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and were represented by Democratic senators. Government attorneys acknowledged the decisions were based on those political characteristics.
In one filing, Justice Department lawyers wrote that “consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible,” arguing that political affiliation can reflect policy priorities the administration is entitled to pursue.
Judge previously ruled cancellations were unlawful
The administration’s latest admission follows a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who concluded that the Energy Department violated the Constitution when it selectively canceled grants in states that did not support Trump.
“The terminated grants had one glaring commonality,” Mehta wrote. “All the awardees (but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Trump in the 2024 election.”
Mehta ordered several grants restored, finding that the administration’s actions likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The ruling addressed only a portion of the canceled grants, while broader litigation remains ongoing.
Administration previously denied politics played a role
The court filings stand in contrast to public statements from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who told Congress last month that politics played no role in the grant cancellations.
“No decisions were made on politics,” Wright testified. “I keep hearing that charge. It’s not true.” At roughly the same time, however, Justice Department attorneys were defending the cancellations in court by acknowledging that political considerations had factored into the decisions.
According to court records, DOE employees had initially been told projects would be evaluated based on technical merit and alignment with administration priorities. Several career officials later said they noticed that canceled projects were concentrated almost entirely in Democratic-leaning states.
Broader legal battle continues
The grant cancellations have become part of a wider legal fight over the Trump administration’s use of federal funding to advance its policy agenda.
Multiple states have filed lawsuits challenging new conditions placed on federal grants and alleging the administration has unlawfully tied funding to compliance with White House priorities on issues including immigration and election administration. The administration has defended those policies as lawful exercises of executive authority.
The energy grant litigation remains active, with additional cases expected to determine whether the administration can continue using political or ideological considerations when deciding which congressionally authorized grants receive federal funding.
READ NEXT: Trump’s New DHS Chief Already Ruffling Feathers Inside White House: Report
