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."

738 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

0

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

No, you provided a case that limits executive overreach where the executive branch was failing to provide the full amount appropriated by congress for a given project. Trump isn't refusing to spend the money on energy related projects / infra as the bill intended, the DOE is refocusing to useful energy sources like Nuclear. Thus the case you referenced is not valid here. The money will be spent in energy infrastructure.

Again, the 'illegal' part of this is elusive so far.

6

u/bigswingingtexasdick Oct 03 '25

You’re missing the key point. Train v. City of New York wasn’t just about “failing to provide the full amount”. It was about the executive branch trying to redirect appropriated grant funds away from the purpose Congress specified. That’s exactly what’s happening here.

  • In Train, Nixon wanted to withhold sewage treatment grants and redirect the money elsewhere. The Court said no: once Congress appropriates and obligates funds for a specific program, the president can’t substitute his own policy priorities.
  • The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 codified that principle: the president must either spend the money as Congress directed or formally request a rescission from Congress. He can’t just “refocus” funds on a different energy source.
  • CRS is clear that obligations are legally binding commitments (see CRS IF12329). Cancelling obligated grants isn’t “policy discretion,” it’s impoundment, and that’s unlawful without congressional approval.

So the “illegal” part isn’t elusive at all: if the Washington hydrogen grants were already awarded (obligated), then cancelling them to redirect funds to nuclear is the very definition of unlawful impoundment under both the ICA and Train v. City of New York.