The RecordExhibit 96
Admitted in court: clean-energy money cut because states voted blue
Ruled unlawful means: A court ruled against it. Some rulings are on appeal.
The administration cancelled more than $7.5 billion in clean energy funding for projects in Democratic-voting states, then acknowledged in a court filing that the grants were chosen for that reason alone.
What happened
In a court filing made public on July 15, 2026, in a lawsuit brought by University of California researchers, Energy Department lawyers agreed that the 284 grants in the October 2025 termination notice were picked 'based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state.' The department had marked 624 grants in red and blue states for termination; the White House budget office then chose which to include in the notice. With one exception, the cancelled grants were in states that voted for Kamala Harris and have two Democratic-caucusing senators, and the remaining roughly 340 had not been cancelled as of mid-May. The filing also says the choice was not based on any program, cost or performance factor. Energy Secretary Chris Wright had told Congress that politics played no part, and on Aug. 4 Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Gabe Amo referred him to the Justice Department for allegedly lying to Congress.
Where it stands
On Jan. 12, 2026, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that cancelling grants only in Democratic-voting states violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. His ruling threw out the terminations of the seven grants at issue in that lawsuit, brought by the city of St. Paul and clean-energy groups; it did not address the rest. In June 2026 a settlement in a second case, also signed by Mehta, restored 11 more. Broader challenges by a coalition of states and by the University of California researchers are pending, and as of June hundreds of awards remained terminated.
The administration's side
The Energy Department says its decisions were not political. A spokesperson said none of the termination decisions were based on political considerations, and spokesman Ben Dietderich said 'any suggestion of a contradiction is a misrepresentation of the court filing.' Wright says the projects were evaluated on their merits, and that which cancellations were announced first was a question of timing and a choice his department did not make. After the January ruling the department said it disagreed and stood by a review that judged each award individually.
Sources
Permanent link: https://unredactedrecord.com/e/cleanenergy/