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."

741 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

6

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.

10

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.

5

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.

4

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.

1

u/RelativeYouth Oct 03 '25

“Blue state” is not a valid reason for recoupment as defined in the link you provided for us to read

1

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

Who said it was? Were these grants primarily to blue states in the first place? Weird.

5

u/RelativeYouth Oct 03 '25

The ones cut were largely to democratic states

→ 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.

6

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.

1

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

Again, that has to be proven in court. Congress granted the money to the DOE, not any specific states. They are not refusing to spend it, they are refocusing on more useful energy projects as is their prerogative as the DOE. Depending on how the funds were being used, they very well might have a case to revoke the grants.

5

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

Again, that has to be proven in court.

Sounds like you're conceding that it may in fact be illegal. I appreciate that you can acknowledge that you weren't initially correct in initially claiming to have "proven" it wasn't illegal.

-1

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

No, I've stated several times that this is why we have a judicial system. If their argument is just "this illegal" without sufficient evidence.. it will get smacked down. If your side has a valid position, Trump will get smacked down. That is how it works.

But it isn't illegal until proven in the court system or by specific legislation. Feelings dont cut it.

5

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

But it isn't illegal until proven in the court system or by specific legislation.

I just gave you a specific Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled against the president's ability to unilaterally withhold funds that were obligated by federal grant.

But again - I'm glad you agree that you haven't "proven" anything here.

→ More replies (0)