World

US court deals blow to Trump’s bid to scrap climate grant programme

Al Jazeera · 2026-08-04

AI SUMMARY

• What happened: A US federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to freeze a $20 billion clean energy grant program, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency likely violated the law in doing so. • Why it matters: This ruling represents a setback for Trump's efforts to roll back climate policies and reinforces the authority of Congress in federal spending, potentially impacting the future of clean energy funding. • What to watch next: The EPA may seek intervention from the US Supreme Court, and the outcome of this legal battle could significantly influence the Biden administration's climate initiatives and clean energy projects.

**US Court Rules Against Trump Administration's Attempt to Cancel Climate Grant Program**

A federal appeals court in the United States has delivered a significant ruling against the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle a multibillion-dollar clean energy grant program. On August 4, 2026, the full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) likely violated the law when it attempted to freeze approximately $20 billion in grants designated for nonprofit organizations involved in clean energy projects.

The ruling marks a setback for former President Donald Trump’s broader initiative to roll back climate policies implemented during the Biden administration. The funds in question are part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, established by Congress through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden. This program, often referred to as a "green bank," was intended to provide federal funding to nonprofit organizations that would then distribute loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings, and clean-energy infrastructure.

The EPA, under the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, has been vocal in its criticism of the program, asserting that it does not align with the agency's priorities. Zeldin has accused the recipients of the grants of engaging in fraud, waste, and mismanagement. In a video posted on social media earlier this year, he characterized the fund as a misuse of taxpayer dollars, claiming that the Biden administration had irresponsibly allocated $20 billion to a few entities that were tasked with distributing the funds to various organizations.

In response to the EPA's decision to freeze the grants, several organizations, including the Climate United Fund and the Coalition for Green Capital, filed a lawsuit. They argued that the Trump administration's actions were illegal, as they were withholding funds that had already been approved by Congress and were motivated by a disagreement over climate policy rather than evidence of wrongdoing.

The recent ruling from the appeals court overturns a previous decision made by a three-judge panel of the same court in September 2025, which had sided with the administration. The full court’s decision to revisit the case is notable, as such actions are typically reserved for significant legal matters. The majority opinion stated that the EPA's attempt to terminate the grants based solely on policy differences likely contravened the Inflation Reduction Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the agency had not provided sufficient assurance that the funds would remain untouched if the injunction were lifted.

This ruling restores an earlier order from US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had determined that the EPA failed to justify its decision to cancel the grants and cautioned that the administration was encroaching on Congress's authority regarding federal spending.

The case is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges to Trump's efforts to reverse Biden's climate agenda. Since returning to office, Trump has focused on rolling back environmental regulations, increasing support for fossil fuel production, and attempting to dismantle clean energy initiatives, arguing that they impose unnecessary financial burdens on businesses and consumers.

While the appeals court ruling is a victory for proponents of clean energy and environmental policy, the release of the funds is not immediate. The decision has been temporarily stayed to allow the EPA time to seek intervention from the US Supreme Court. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the future of clean energy funding and the Biden administration's climate initiatives.

Source: Al Jazeera
RELATED NEWS

More Stories

All News
World

How the far right weaponised the Ceuta crisis

• What happened: More than 72 migrants died while attempting to reach Ceuta, leading to intense political debate and controversy, particularly among far-right f...

World

Projectile sinks Indian-flagged ship off Yemen coast

• What happened: An Indian-flagged vessel, the MSV Faize Noore Oliya, sank off the coast of Yemen after being hit by a projectile, but all 14 crew members were ...

World

Funeral for family killed in US strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island

• What happened: A funeral was held for a family, including a couple and their two-year-old child, killed in a US military strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, prompt...

World

Death toll rises to 87 in India’s flood-stricken Assam

• What happened: The death toll from severe flooding in Assam, India, has risen to 87, with thousands displaced and living in makeshift shelters after relentles...

World

Six years on, Beirut blast families still await justice

• What happened: Families of victims of the Beirut port blast marked the sixth anniversary of the explosion, demanding truth and accountability amid ongoing del...

World

National Guard deployment to Washington, DC will cost US roughly $1.4bn

• What happened: The U.S. Department of Defense estimated that the extension of the National Guard deployment in Washington, DC, until January 2029 will cost ap...