Biden-era green bank grants totaling $20 billion remain stalled, even after an appeals court ruled against the previous Trump administration’s efforts to cancel them two months ago.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 6–4 on August 4 to uphold a decision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from shutting down the Inflation Reduction Act grants. The court stated the agency “likely violated the IRA’s mandatory allocation.” Shortly after, the court agreed to the administration’s request to keep the funds frozen while it prepares to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Jason Isaac, the CEO of the American Energy Institute, expressed in a statement that “The Supreme Court should definitely take this case.” He criticized the Biden administration for “rushing $20 billion in taxpayer funds into the hands of politically connected groups,” suggesting this created what seems to be a slush fund for climate initiatives.
Mark Drajem, media director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), remarked that “Americans are facing soaring utility bills,” and criticized the Trump administration for hindering the program’s implementation, which he believes would help those most in need. He described this as a harsh blow, especially given the president’s commitment to reducing energy costs.
According to Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, the stay on the court’s ruling pauses the requirement for the funds to be disbursed until November 9. This stay could continue until the Supreme Court makes its decision, assuming the administration submits a petition. Interestingly, the grantees did not oppose this action.
The EPA, Climate United, as well as the offices of Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito and Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, did not immediately reply to requests for comments. In March 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin canceled the grants, citing “well-documented concerns regarding self-dealing and conflicts of interest.” Climate United, the largest recipient, was set to receive around $7 billion.
Earlier, in September 2025, a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the EPA, deciding 2-1 that the grantees’ primary arguments were essentially contractual and should be addressed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Interestingly, the dissenting judges noted in August that they would have lifted the stay by highlighting Congress’s repeal of the section that initiated the program through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Following this, the EPA indicated it was assessing its next moves.
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, described it as “painful” to see EPA employees discussing grant distribution as if they were tossing gold bars from the Titanic. His take is that this reflects the predictable outcome of government spending taxpayer money.
He continued, arguing that resource-neutral permitting reform is more effective than subsidies, as it promotes energy projects without the government choosing winners and losers, which often leads to excessive waste. With permitting reform, he believes builders can trust that rules won’t be constantly shifting.
Isaac also criticized the notion that government-funded green banks would reduce energy costs, calling it “laughable.” He argued that redirecting taxpayer money through politically favored intermediaries and subsidizing technologies that may not perform well in the market doesn’t lower energy prices.
However, the NRDC, which supports the program, holds a different view. Drajem pointed out that while the upfront costs are significant, these grants could unlock even more private investment. He referred to a previous analysis indicating that the program could generate a total of $65.5 billion in investments and save consumers around $52 billion on energy expenses over 20 years.
Isaac reiterated that “affordability stems from abundant and reliable energy coupled with competition, not government subsidies.” He added that the Supreme Court has a chance to tackle crucial questions surrounding oversight of these grants and ensure that taxpayers aren’t treated like an endless source of funds for the Democrats’ agenda.
Drajem urged the administration to stop its opposition to the program and to instead help disburse the funds to those who genuinely need assistance, cautioning that prolonged court battles would signal a lack of concern for reducing energy costs.
Interestingly, green banks continued their lending without federal support. They financed $12.4 billion in projects over 2024 and 2025, primarily relying on about $11 billion from private investors, as reported by the U.S. Green Bank 50. Dan Adler, the executive director of the coalition, noted that they are “making a virtue out of necessity.”
Climate United has reportedly been unable to implement plans for financing U.S.-made electric trucks and loans for clean energy projects led by Native Americans due to the funding uncertainties.
After the ruling in August, Climate United stated that there was “no legal basis” for terminating their grant. Meanwhile, Democrats celebrated the ruling, with various senators and representatives stating it thwarted the Trump administration’s inappropriate attempts to seize the funds and violate the law.
Additionally, two federal district courts also invalidated the EPA’s cancellation of the separate $7 billion Solar for All program funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in September, as per the Sabin Center.
