More than $600 billion in clean-energy funding approved during the Biden administration remains available for spending or future awards even after the Trump administration eliminated hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives and sought to cancel tens of billions more in grants and contracts.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
More than $600 billion in federal clean-energy funding enacted under former President Joe Biden remains intact after 18 months of efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle major portions of his climate agenda, according to a POLITICO analysis published Saturday.
President Donald Trump has succeeded in eliminating a substantial portion of the tax incentives created or expanded under Biden, but the administration has had far less success clawing back direct federal spending already authorized through grants, contracts and other programs.
The analysis found that more than $540 billion in tax incentives for electric vehicles, wind and solar energy and other technologies were eliminated through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Those estimates were based on calculations from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Direct spending has proven considerably more difficult to reverse.
Nearly $1 trillion in grants, contracts and other expenditures were authorized under Biden’s infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Of that amount, the Trump administration has attempted to cancel at least $60 billion, representing roughly 6% of the total, according to the analysis.
Many of those attempted cancellations remain tied up in court disputes.
Federal agencies have also taken different approaches to reviewing and terminating Biden-era awards.
The Energy Department said in February that it had made “great strides” in unwinding programs established under the previous administration.
Its review, however, ultimately preserved or modified 86% of more than 1,900 awards that came under examination.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Congress this spring that the department was “keen to move forward with the majority of projects.”
The Environmental Protection Agency has pursued a more aggressive strategy.
The EPA canceled approximately $29 billion in grants that agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said were “riddled with self-dealing and conflicts of interest.”
A federal appeals court restored $17 billion of that funding this month.
The EPA has said it plans to appeal that decision.
Across the federal government, the Trump administration has attempted to terminate more than 1,150 individual awards valued at at least $37 billion.
Approximately $30 billion of those awards were designated for projects located in congressional districts represented by Democrats, according to the analysis.
Congress separately rescinded another $24 billion that had been designated for future spending.
One group of cancellations has drawn particular scrutiny after the administration acknowledged in court filings that a $7.5 billion round of terminated projects was selected “solely” because the projects were located in Democratic-leaning states.
That disclosure prompted 39 Senate Democrats to demand restoration of the funding.
The White House has defended the administration’s broader effort to review and cancel Biden-era climate spending.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the Trump administration is “strengthening the accountability measures” that she said were lacking under Biden.
The dispute illustrates the difference between eliminating future tax incentives and reclaiming money Congress has already appropriated or federal agencies have already committed.
Tax provisions can be changed legislatively, as Republicans did through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Existing grants and contracts can present more complicated legal and administrative challenges, particularly once recipients have received awards, entered agreements or begun projects based on federal commitments.
That distinction has allowed hundreds of billions of dollars authorized during the Biden administration to remain available even as Trump has made dismantling his predecessor’s climate policies a major priority.
The Energy Department’s decision to retain or modify 86% of the awards it reviewed also demonstrates that the administration has not sought to cancel every project created under Biden-era laws.
Wright’s statement that the department intends to proceed with most reviewed projects suggests officials have determined that many investments remain worth continuing despite the administration’s broader opposition to Biden’s climate agenda.
The EPA’s approach has been markedly different, with the agency attempting to terminate tens of billions of dollars in grants while alleging serious problems with the programs.
The courts are now playing an important role in determining how far those cancellations can go.
The restoration of $17 billion in EPA grants by a federal appeals court represents one of the largest setbacks so far to the administration’s effort to reclaim previously committed funds.
With the EPA planning an appeal and other canceled awards also facing litigation, the final amount ultimately eliminated could change substantially.
For now, however, more than $600 billion remains available either for recipients to spend or for federal agencies to award.
The political fight over that money is expected to intensify during congressional budget negotiations this fall.
It is also likely to become part of the broader debate heading into the November midterm elections, particularly as Republicans argue they have reduced wasteful climate spending while Democrats seek to preserve investments enacted under Biden.
Control of Congress next year could prove decisive.
A Republican majority could pursue additional rescissions or restrictions on remaining funds, while Democratic control of either chamber could make further large-scale cancellations more difficult.
Despite the Trump administration’s success in eliminating more than $540 billion in tax incentives and its attempts to cancel tens of billions more in direct spending, a substantial portion of Biden’s clean-energy agenda therefore remains financially intact.
The fate of the remaining money will depend increasingly on the courts, upcoming budget negotiations and the outcome of the 2026 elections.
Original article
Comments