grants

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” including California and 15 other states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

The statement, included in a court filing last week in a lawsuit over the canceled funding, contradicts repeated assertions by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or had other problems that made them a poor investment of taxpayer dollars.

The Department of Energy said in the filing Wednesday that “DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants … was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State. DOE will not contend that it looked beyond the prime grantee(s) to consider the political identity or geographic distribution of downstream beneficiaries of the grant funds.”

The agency also said that it “accepts that the differential treatment resulting in the October 2025 termination of Blue State grants and the non-termination of non-Blue State grants was not based on a rational connection between the recipient’s location and/or place of performance and DOE’s past or current agency priorities.”

Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing, saying the administration had “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views.

A ‘corrupt abuse of power’

“This administration has now admitted in court what has long been obvious: it terminated nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects for no reason other than the fact that the states they were in did not vote for the president in the 2024 election,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state said in a joint statement. Both are high-ranking Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively.

“Weaponizing the federal government like this is outright un-American, and it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power,” Kaptur and Murray said.

They called on congressional Republicans to join them in holding the Trump administration “accountable for the President’s failure to look out for all Americans.”

The Energy Department announced in October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated, saying that after review, they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.”

The cuts, part of broader attacks from President Trump on climate programs and clean energy funding, slashed federal support for projects to build battery plants, develop hydrogen technology, upgrade the electric grid and capture carbon dioxide emissions.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, highlighted the cutbacks in a social media post, saying that money “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.”

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Projects from many states were cut

Projects that were cut were located in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. All 16 targeted states supported Harris, but Wright said the cuts were “business decisions” based on whether the projects were a good use of taxpayer money or not.

The cuts were immediately challenged in court, and more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, wrote a letter to the Energy Department’s acting inspector general requesting a formal investigation. The department’s internal watchdog launched an investigation in December.

Government lawyers had previously confirmed in a court filing late last year that the selection of grants in fact “was influenced by whether a grantee’s address was located in a State that tends to elect … Democratic candidates in state and national elections (so-called ‘Blue States’).”

That filing came in a separate suit filed by clean-energy groups and the city of St. Paul, Minn., over the canceled funding. The most recent admission came in a case called Thakur vs. Trump that’s been ongoing since spring 2025. Federal lawyers acknowledged that they used keywords related to diversity, gender and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, said the latest court filing shows “the Trump administration is brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach to cancelling much-needed energy infrastructure that ignores the job losses, air pollution and increasing bills that people are experiencing everywhere.”

Instead of “building the energy projects we desperately need,” billions of American taxpayer dollars are “going to line the pockets of a small handful of fossil fuel company CEOs,” Bender said, citing nearly $3 billion pledged by the Trump administration to cancel offshore wind projects in favor of fossil fuel projects such as natural gas and coal.

Daly writes for the Associated Press.

July 25 (UPI) — The Trump administration admitted that it canceled nearly $8 billion in grants slated for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely” on whether a state voted for Kamala Harris for president, it was reported Friday.

In a recent court filing, a lawyer for the Energy Department said none of the axed projects lost their funding “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor.”

The Trump administration attorney added, “The 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

The government’s admission, first reported by The New York Times, came out as part of a July 15 court filing in a class action lawsuit over the slashed grants.

The Department of Energy selected 600 grants for cancellation and sent the list to the Office of Management and Budget, which terminated 284 of them in October.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” OMB Director Russell Vought wrote on X.

Despite also being recommended for cancellation from energy officials, the OMB left untouched hundreds of projects in places that voted for Trump, court documents show.

“The inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State,” Trump administration lawyers wrote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, called the move “unprecedented Trumpism and something we should never become numb to.”

“Trump admits he’s ripping the rug out from under hardworking families so he can get revenge on the Americans who didn’t vote for him,” the New York democrat added. “It’s sick and deranged. His ego is so fragile, he’ll punish families already struggling to put food on the table for a little bit of vengeance.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said, “This mass partisan retribution is appalling, outrageous, dangerous, lawless, unconstitutional, unpatriotic and a massive offense against the Republic.”

“Every elected official must denounce this imbecilic deep betrayal of America,” Raskin added in a statement. “And the illegally impounded funds must be restored and released immediately to the blue states.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.

For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.

These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.

And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.

At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.

“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”

The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.

“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”

July 8 (UPI) — New York Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered that writer E. Jean Carrol be paid $5 million plus interest in damages owed to her after President Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

But Trump’s attorneys have already filed an appeal of Kaplan’s order with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes. President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again,” a spokesperson from the legal team told CNBC.

Trump and his attorneys filed a motion Tuesday to pause the payout, arguing there was still a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. They were arguing against Carrol’s motion to disburse the money from escrow filed on June 30.

Trump’s attorneys had argued that a “timely petition for rehearing remains pending before the Supreme Court.”

“Collection cannot begin while proceedings remain pending before the Supreme Court, which is currently the case,” lawyers Josh Halpern and Michael Madaio wrote in their response to Carroll’s petition.

In his order, Kaplan mentioned an agreement between Carroll and Trump that called for the money to be given to her if the Supreme Court denied his appeal.

The Court declined to hear Trump’s case on June 29. That means the verdict finding him liable stands.

Kaplan didn’t agree with lawyers’ arguments about the Supreme Court because Trump’s petition for reconsideration isn’t likely to succeed. The Court rarely grants those requests, CNBC reported.

Carroll was awarded the damages by a jury in 2023 after finding him liable for sexual abuse in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and for defaming her in 2019 after she came forward with the allegations. Trump denies the allegations.

In the defamation case, Carroll was awarded $83.3 million in damages.

“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote on Truth Social in late June. “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.”

Trump’s lawyers claim that a petition for rehearing is “pending” before the Supreme Court, but records show it wasn’t accepted for filing this week, The Hill reported.

In the petition, the lawyers argue that Trump would have “unrecoverable loss” if the money were disbursed then overturned on appeal because Carroll has said she would donate all the money from the defamation suit.

“Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that she intends to give away all funds that she collects from him, and once those funds are distributed to third parties, they likely cannot be recovered,” lawyers Josh Halpern and Michael Madaio wrote in the filing.

Carroll’s attorneys argued that Trump is trying to unjustly delay the payment.

“This is the end of the line,” they wrote in a June 30 filing. “After four years of litigation across every level of the federal court system, it is time for this case to end.”

July 3 (UPI) — The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a stay on state Attorney General Liz Murrill’s indictment, less than 24 hours after a grand jury approved charges.

The New Orleans grand jury charged Murrill, a Republican, with 16 felony counts of malfeasance in office and public intimidation related to alleged threats contained in a letter she sent to Orleans Parish leaders in May.

The letter allegedly threatened recipients, including Democratic Mayor Helena Moreno and District Attorney Jason Williams, that they could lose their positions if they opposed a new law to combine New Orleans’ criminal and district clerks of court. The eliminates the position of newly-elected Clerk of Court Calvin Duncan, a Democrat.

The Louisiana Supreme Court halted the criminal proceedings Friday morning, citing potential conflicts of interest tied to special prosecutor Laurie White’s past actions representing Duncan.

The court’s ruling also questioned reports of incidents during the grand jury proceedings, including allegations that journalists were forcibly removed from the proceedings in handcuffs.

“While the record before this Court is undeveloped, there is considerable support for the view that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits of a motion to quash this indictment on either a legal basis or due to apparent procedural irregularities,” The Hill quoted the ruling as stating.

“The Attorney General makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court’s handlings of those proceedings. This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.”

Murrill praised the development in a statement posted to social media.

“I’m grateful to the Louisiana Supreme Court for swiftly issuing a stay in this matter. The constitution and laws of Louisiana impose a wide swath of duties on the Attorney General. I will continue to carry out those duties to the best of my ability,” she wrote. “This matter is not over. I will still need to file the necessary motions to seek a dismissal, which will be forthcoming.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, R, had earlier pledged to pardon Murrill.

“I would like to inform the great citizens of Louisiana who care about the rule of law, that our fabulous Office of the Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill will not have to worry about having her reputation tarnished by this kangaroo grand jury or the Orleans Kangaroo court as I will pardon her as fast as the law allows. The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that,” he wrote on social media.

June 18 (Asia Today) — South Korea is again considering changes to a local education funding system that automatically receives a fixed share of national tax revenue, as a semiconductor-driven rise in government receipts is expected to increase grants despite a shrinking student population.

The debate centers on local education finance grants, the main source of funding for elementary, middle and high schools administered by regional education offices.

The grants have risen to about 76 trillion won ($50 billion) under this year’s supplementary budget, according to the National Assembly Budget Office and education officials.

Some projections suggest the total could exceed 80 trillion won ($52.6 billion) if stronger tax revenue from the semiconductor industry is fully reflected.

The grant system receives 20.79% of internal tax revenue along with part of the national education tax. That means the amount increases when tax receipts rise, regardless of changes in student enrollment.

The number of elementary, middle and high school students fell from 5.96 million in 2016 to 4.92 million this year, a decline of 1.04 million, or 17.4%.

Over the same period, local education grants increased from 43 trillion won ($28.3 billion) to 76 trillion won, an increase of 33 trillion won ($21.7 billion), or 76.7%.

Budget officials and public finance experts say the automatic link to tax revenue makes government spending less flexible.

They argue that funding for primary and secondary education continues to expand despite falling enrollment while early childhood, higher education and lifelong learning programs face comparatively greater financial constraints.

Proposals include adjusting the percentage of internal tax revenue allocated to the grants or incorporating changes in the school-age population and nominal economic growth into the funding formula.

Education officials have strongly opposed reducing the grants based mainly on student numbers.

Superintendents-elect from South Korea’s ninth nationwide local elections issued a joint statement Monday warning that students would ultimately bear the cost of a funding overhaul driven primarily by fiscal considerations.

“Personnel expenses for teachers and other employees, school operating costs and facility safety and maintenance expenses arise at the school and classroom level, not simply on a per-student basis,” they said.

Schools also face growing fixed costs for meal services, after-school care and administrative support.

Personnel costs for permanent contract employees at public schools, including cafeteria workers, care staff and administrative assistants, reached 5.74 trillion won ($3.77 billion) last year.

That was a 61% increase from 2021. The figure is expected to exceed 6 trillion won ($3.94 billion) this year.

Three major teachers’ organizations also rejected claims that regional education offices have excess money.

They said the combined initial budgets of special education accounts fell by about 1 trillion won ($657 million) this year.

Funding for teaching and learning support declined 14.9%, while spending on school facility improvements fell 22.4%, they said.

The groups described education office reserve funds as a financial safeguard rather than unused money.

The Education Ministry is reportedly considering alternatives to immediately lowering the legally mandated allocation rate.

Possible measures include retaining the link to internal tax revenue while placing a ceiling on annual increases or allowing regional education offices to use more of the money for early childhood, higher education and lifelong learning.

The approach is intended to avoid a sudden reduction in primary and secondary school funding while directing more resources toward other parts of the education system.

Park Nam-gi, an emeritus professor at Gwangju National University of Education, said many necessary programs remain underfunded despite claims that schools have surplus resources.

“There are many things schools cannot do because they lack funding,” Park said.

He cited the expansion of special education, separate spaces and personnel needed to protect teachers and investment in education suited to the artificial intelligence era.

“It is wrong to conclude that education funding is excessive without properly supporting these needs,” Park said.

He said cash assistance programs introduced by some superintendents should be corrected where necessary, but that such concerns should not be used to justify reducing the overall education budget.

“Unlike welfare spending for the present, education funding is an investment in the country’s future,” Park said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260618010006611

A federal immigration judge has granted asylum to a woman orphaned in Iran in the 1970s and adopted by an American war veteran, whom immigration officials threatened this year with deportation to the country with which the U.S. is now at war.

Judge Andrew Fishkin’s ruling probably ends a months-long ordeal for the California woman, one of thousands adopted from abroad who were never granted citizenship because of bureaucratic loopholes between adoption and immigration law.

The woman has lived in the United States since she was adopted by American parents as a toddler and has no criminal record. The Associated Press is not naming her because she worries her legal situation remains tenuous as the administration has time to appeal. A federal judge has allowed her to use a pseudonym, “Ms. S,” in her challenge to the government’s determination of her immigration status.

The woman received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in February that ordered her to appear for removal proceedings, saying she is subject to deportation because she overstayed her visa in March 1974 at 4 years old.

The woman, 56, described what came next as a terrifying and humiliating few months.

She grew up in a Christian, military family on a farm in Wisconsin and was taught to be patriotic. But the documents she received from the government described her as an “alien;” some said she did not understand English, which is the only language she speaks.

Immigration officials told her she was being arrested, but was released and tracked with an ankle monitor. She bought new pants to try to hide it and taught herself not to cross her legs in work meetings, terrified it would threaten the corporate job in healthcare she’s held for almost two decades.

They fingerprinted her and took her DNA. She said she was obviously weeping in the mug shot they snapped of her.

She prepared herself to be detained: She put her bills on autopay and gave her friends a key to her home.

Her lawyer, Emily Howe, said the government had the power to agree she is an American citizen.

“Instead they treated her like a terrorist, like she was the worst of the worst criminals,” Howe said. “It felt very Big Brother, very Orwellian.”

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record on an individual case.

The Associated Press profiled the woman in 2024 as part of a story about how many international adoptees were left without citizenship because their American adoptive parents failed to naturalize them.

The woman’s parents were living in Iran, where her father was working for a U.S. government contractor, in the 1970s. He was retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel. He’d been held for years a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II.

The couple found the toddler at an orphanage and returned to the U.S. with her in 1973 and soon completed the adoption. At that time, parents had to separately naturalize adopted children. The woman’s parents have since died.

She didn’t learn she hadn’t been naturalized until she applied for a passport at 38 years old. She still doesn’t know how the oversight happened. She searched her father’s papers and found a letter from a lawyer, dated 1975, that said he was working with immigration officials, “it appears this matter is concluded,” and billed her father for his services.

She filed a federal lawsuit this month trying to prohibit the government from removing her and forcing it to grant her citizenship.

She has long believed she should be considered a U.S. citizen: She has a Social Security card, and a driver’s license and has been legally allowed to work and pay taxes for decades. It’s only the immigration agency that denies she is a citizen. She suspects her paperwork was lost, probably when militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Fishkin seemed to agree: He wrote in his ruling that documents from that embassy are not available to her or to the U.S. government. He declared her a refugee, entitled to work in the U.S. His ruling puts the woman on a pathway to being recognized as a citizen.

She’d felt hopeful, she said, when she learned her court date before Fishkin was scheduled for her late father’s birthday. She always felt like she needed to protect not only herself but also her father’s legacy. He was a conscientious military official, she said, who would not have knowingly allowed such a glaring oversight that left his daughter in legal limbo.

Galofaro writes for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — The Trump administration has extended protections shielding about 11,000 Lebanese from deportation, allowing them to stay and work in the United States for another six months.

The decision, announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security, marked a rare reprieve for people protected by temporary measures that have been harshly criticized by Republicans. The extension comes amid ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.

The decision was automatic, meaning that the administration missed the deadline by which it was supposed to decide on whether to extend the measure called Temporary Protected Status for Lebanese people living in the U.S. who are covered by the program. By statute, the status automatically extends for six months if the department misses the deadline.

It was an unusual outcome for an administration that has canceled the protections that had covered people from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Syria from deportation.

TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife, giving people authorization to work in increments of up to 18 months. More than 1 million immigrants from 17 countries were protected by TPS at the beginning of the Trump administration, after the Biden administration greatly expanded its use.

The program has been at the center of a controversy.

Republicans and critics of TPS argue that the program and its protections deviate from their original temporary intent, taking on a quasi-permanent character when extended. Its defenders assert that it is a fundamental humanitarian program that prevents vulnerable individuals from being forced to return to dangerous conditions.

The DHS notice said that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has led the department for the last two months, “were unable to make an informed determination on Lebanon’s TPS designation.”

The extension allows existing beneficiaries to keep their protections through Nov. 27, “if they still meet the eligibility requirements for TPS,” according to the notice. The work permits that were already issued for Lebanese TPS holders will be valid until the same day.

This is the second time the Trump administration has automatically extended a TPS designation. The first happened nearly a year ago with South Sudan, but the protections were terminated in November 2025, after the six-month extension period.

There are dozens of lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS at federal courts in different states. The Supreme Court is set to make a decision on TPS that protected Haitians and Syrians during the summer, and the result is expected to have an impact on all the other cases.

Advocates welcomed the extension.

“Extending Temporary Protected Status means Lebanese nationals in the United States will not be forced back into dangerous conditions but allowed to stay and continue supporting their families and contributing to their local communities,” said Kelly Razzouk, vice president of policy and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee.

José Palma, national coordinator of the National TPS Alliance — an advocacy group that has fought in federal courts against the cancellation of TPS for several countries—welcomed the extension of protections for the Lebanese.

“But we need to find a permanent solution for all TPS beneficiaries,” he warned.

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.