The $20 billion worth of climate-related funds approved by Congress continue as the Environmental Protection Agency-backed Court of Appeals ended Biden-era grants to nonprofits on Tuesday.
The legal dispute comes from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin’s decision to cancel diversified grants as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Zeldin said the grant did not match the EPA’s current priorities, claiming that he was concerned about the fraud without evidence.
The district court previously ruled that Zeldin’s actions were “arbitrary and whimsical.”
Justice for the two majority of Trump’s appointees wrote that cancellations of Zeldin’s contracts are in effect and that the government must “ensure proper monitoring and control” of the grant. They cited them as a group of conservative activists who supported their decision and released a secret investigation video, a tolerated video, filmed by Project Veritas.
In March, court filings revealed that the EPA, FBI and EPA inspectors had directed Citibank to freeze money already placed in accounts managed by the nonprofit. Money is primarily used on loans, which is repaid and recycled.
The grants in question have been awarded to a variety of nonprofit organizations, including Climate United and Power Forward. As of the March hearing, Climate United had committed to a $392 million project based on accounts, including $63 million for solar power generation in Oregon and Idaho and $392 million for rural Arkansas solar projects. Power Forward has committed $539 million and said it will be unable to pay contractors’ unpaid bills due to the freeze.
Zeldin had argued that fraud was one of his main concerns, but according to a report by the New York Times, a lengthy investigation by interim US lawyers in Washington, D.C., failed to raise meaningful evidence.
TechCrunch Events
San Francisco
|
October 27th-29th, 2025
Presumably as a result of the lack of evidence of fraud, the previous EPA discussions were made by the Court of Appeals focused on the contractual nature of grants. The majority of the judiciary agreed that the U.S. federal claims court should hear the matter, not the broader federal judiciary.
Opposition Justice, an Obama appointee, said the EPA “has no legal basis or any basis, but it hinders funds that are already belonging to the plaintiffs as directed by Congress.”
The plaintiff is likely to appeal to the US Supreme Court. If they fail there, the EPA could still be liable for billions of dollars, according to legal analysis by their lawyers.
