EPA misuses law enforcement to freeze climate funds, senator alleges

On March 12, 2025, in the United States, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, publicly criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allegedly misusing its powers. He claimed that the EPA had initiated a criminal investigation to justify freezing funds from the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). This funding lifeline was intended to assist low-income Americans in accessing clean technology. Whitehouse's allegations arose after EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the discovery of $20 billion in EPA funds at Citibank, which he claimed the agency was attempting to reclaim through questionable legal strategies. The immediate impact of the funding freeze has been significant, as stakeholders such as Climate United reported that it hindered their ability to support small businesses and individuals struggling to cover essential expenses. The agency's action halted the disbursement from the GGRF accounts held with Citibank, which manages funding for programs associated with the GGRF, including the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator. Citibank stated they were acting under government orders to pause fund distributions, citing an ongoing criminal investigation that suggested possible fraud connected to Climate United's accounts. According to court filings, Citibank explained that they were not responsible for liability as they were merely following orders from the EPA and the Department of Treasury which ordered the freeze after concerns about possible misconduct. Meanwhile, Climate United has asserted that they complied with all terms of their grant and debunked the supposed evidence of foul play, emphasizing the adverse effects the freeze has inflicted upon the recipients of these funds. On the same day as these developments, the EPA announced a series of aggressive deregulatory actions targeting long-standing environmental protections related to air and water quality, further stirring controversy amidst the environmental community. Critics have voiced concerns over the implications of reduced oversight on emissions regulations, which may ultimately reverse significant public health progress achieved under the previous administration. The potential termination of the EPA’s endangerment finding—a legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases—also raised alarms regarding the future of emissions standards for vehicles and power plants, thus jeopardizing enhanced protections for vulnerable communities. Thus, the events surrounding the funding freeze, alongside broader deregulation efforts, fuel an escalating narrative of conflict between environmental advocacy and the current administration's agenda, with institutions like Climate United and many affected communities labeled the collateral damage in a high-stakes political game over climate policy.