Energy Department Says Grants Were Cut Because States Voted Blue

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomePMN BusinessEnergy Department Says Grants Were Cut Because States Voted BlueDemocrats are demanding that the Trump administration release billions in funding for energy projects after a top Energy Department lawyer conceded in court filings that the only reason they were canceled is that they were in “Blue States.”Author of the article: You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.(Bloomberg) — Democrats are demanding that the Trump administration release billions in funding for energy projects after a top Energy Department lawyer conceded in court filings that the only reason they were canceled is that they were in “Blue States.”THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountThat concession by Jeffrey Novak, DOE’s principal deputy general counsel, came in court documents filed last week in a lawsuit brought by University of California faculty and researchers whose grants had been terminated. He said politics, not policy, drove the decision.“DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” Novak wrote. “DOE 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.”Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe Energy Department eliminated nearly $8 billion in energy grants last October just hours into a government shutdown, as President Donald Trump attempted to exert leverage on Democratic lawmakers to pass a spending bill. They included $1.2 billion earmarked for a California hydrogen hub that had been approved under President Joe Biden.“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” White House Budget Director Russ Vought announced on social media, listing 16 states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demanded Friday that the Energy Department release $583 million that had been designated for his state.“Donald Trump’s cancellation of federal grant funds for Illinois organizations was obviously a political attack from the start, and now his own officials have admitted it in court,” he said in a statement. “These are the actions of a narcissistic authoritarian blinded by the glare of his own ego, and they are hurting working families in my state.”Neither the Office of Management and Budget nor the Energy Department responded to requests for comment Friday evening. The revelation comes as the White House is trying to push though changes to grant-making rules that would give it even more control over who receives more than $1 trillion in federal grants. The administration argues that it needs the added authority to eliminate waste and make sure grants align with administration priorities.In the court filing last week, Novak acknowledged that the cancellation of Energy Department grants last October was not “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”This advertisement has not loaded yet.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.