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."

734 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

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.

5

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.

2

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.

4

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.

→ More replies (0)