Court rules EPA can terminate climate grants amid legal battles

In early September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made a significant ruling regarding climate grant funding. The court vacated a previous district court injunction that had prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from terminating climate-related grants that had been awarded by the Biden Administration. The ruling was issued after the Trump administration faced a legal challenge over its efforts to withdraw $16 billion in funds allocated to nonprofit organizations aimed at greenhouse gas reduction and climate policy promotion. The court found that the district court had overstepped its authority and ruled in favor of the EPA's need for proper oversight regarding these funding distributions. Judge Neomi Rao, who wrote the opinion for the panel, stated that the district court abused its discretion by issuing the preliminary injunction that favored the grantees, which were essentially contractual claims not likely to succeed on their merits. This decision aligns with President Trump's efforts to reassess federal spending, specifically in regard to climate change initiatives perceived as mismanaged or wasteful. Environmental advocates, including organizations like the Climate United Fund, expressed disappointment at the ruling and highlighted ongoing concerns that the termination of these grants would hinder project funding and efforts to foster clean energy opportunities. They maintained that the funds were legally obligated and that the abrupt withdrawal by the EPA could have detrimental effects on infrastructure projects aimed at reducing energy costs and fostering job creation across communities. Trump’s administration succeeded in its appeal, indicating a compelling shift in federal policy towards climate grant management and showcasing the administration's resolve to cut spending tied to what it deemed inefficient programs. The ruling not only illustrates the contentious atmosphere surrounding climate change funding in the United States but also sets a precedent for the interpretation of jurisdiction concerning federal grants in future litigation.