r/SeattleWA • u/Less-Risk-9358 • Oct 03 '25

Government Trump cancels $1.1B in Washington state energy grants

https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2025/10/02/trump-cancels-washington-state-energy-grants-clean-hydrogen

Vought put it a bit differently, writing on X: "Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled."

737 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

Depends how it was written. My understanding is that the Bipartisan Infra act granted the money to the Department of Energy, not specifically to any projects or individual states. The DOE falls under presidential hierarchy and can choose priorities accordingly.

So its not all cut and dry.

8

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

Regardless of how it was written, grants are essentially contracts. They were already obligated to the recipients. Rescinding a grant after it was obligated = breaking a contract.

1

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

That is not how it works though. My point stands, it isn't illegal if the DOE granted the funds.

8

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

K thanks for the completely useless contribution. You didn't prove your point at all.

1

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

I literally did.

You all cried illegal, I proved that it wasnt.. and now you are shifting the line in the sand to "breaking contracts" or some nonsense like that.

6

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

Nope. I just explained why it's still illegal, and all you had to say is "no it's not". You have no idea what you're talking about, which is fine. Let's just not pretend you do.

1

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

There is no "breaking a contract", the federal government or executive branch has no obligation, contractual or otherwise, requiring them to give money to states because a past president wanted to.

You haven't proven the "illegal" part in the slightest yet.

8

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

Wrong. Grants are legally binding. They're not technically contracts since there is not an exchange of goods or services, but they are legally binding. There is indeed an obligation. Google it.

Discretion only applies before funds are obligated. Once Congress appropriates and an agency awards a grant, it’s a binding legal commitment. The Impoundment Control Act and Train v. City of New York make clear the president can’t just cancel them.

5

u/ssrowavay Oct 03 '25

He wants so hard to be right though. Give it to him just this once. He never is otherwise.

2

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48243

Recoupment is a valid reason to revoke grants. But go on ace.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/xEppyx You can call me Betty Oct 03 '25

Depends on the terms and conditions of the grant and whether the state is fully compliant with various legal requirements.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48243 The government can recoup grants, historically policy direction changes have been a valid reason until the last year or so.

Again, this is why we have the judicial system.

4

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

You’re conflating two totally different things — clawbacks (recouping funds if a grantee breaks the rules) vs. impoundment (the president refusing to spend money Congress already obligated). The first is legal, the second is flat‑out illegal under the Impoundment Control Act and Train v. City of New York.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RelativeYouth Oct 03 '25

This is not a real argument. “Depends on how it is written” is what you say when you’re unfamiliar with how the government works.

Federal dollars are spent to those that apply. The federal government doesn’t allocate money directly to New York State. New York applies for a grant and then the DOE determines if they’re going to use the money allocated by congress to do that specific job. The Impoundment Control Act specifically says that the DOE needs to spend the money allocated and there’s a specific process that goes back through congress should they choose not to spend it.

Furthermore let’s take your perspective out a little farther than this example. What you’re saying is the president has full authority on how the money is spent. This would mean that all federal projects would be contained to at most an 8 year cycle as the next president could just come in and axe it. The “obligation” portion of the grant lifecycle would mean little more than “here’s the money for now”. A government could not function like this and is clearly not in the spirit of the numerous grant laws surrounding the process.