Twenty billion dollars in Biden-era green bank grants remain locked up after a D.C. Circuit fight, as the Trump administration prepares a Supreme Court challenge climate groups call a blow to households.
The money from the Inflation Reduction Act’s greenhouse gas reduction fund has sat frozen for two months since the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 6, 4 against the Environmental Protection Agency’s bid to kill the awards. Days later the same court agreed to keep the cash on ice while the administration readies its Supreme Court petition, the Daily Caller reported.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin canceled the grants in March 2025, citing “well documented concerns about self-dealing and conflicts of interest.” The full court later found the agency “likely contravened the IRA’s mandatory appropriation,” yet still paused the payout piece of its order through Nov. 9. If a high-court petition is filed, that freeze extends until the justices act. Grantees did not oppose the stay.
Climate United, the largest recipient at about $7 billion, has been unable to move forward on plans it described for U.S.-built electric trucks, efficiency upgrades, and loans to Native American-led projects. After the August ruling the group said that despite “false allegations and misinformation, there remains no legal basis for terminating our grant award.”
The March 2025 cancelation put the entire $20 billion package in limbo. A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel had already sided 2, 1 with the EPA in September 2025, holding that the grantees’ main claims were “essentially contractual” and belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The full court later reversed course on the termination block.
Four judges in the minority would have lifted part of the order. They pointed to Congress’s repeal of the section that created the program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. After the 6, 4 vote, the EPA said it was reviewing next steps.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation the high court should step in.
"The Supreme Court should absolutely take this case."
Isaac framed the original awards as rushed political spending.
"The Biden administration rushed $20 billion in taxpayer money into the hands of politically connected organizations, creating what looks like a taxpayer-funded slush fund for its climate agenda."
He rejected the idea that the program cuts household costs.
"The claim that government-funded green banks lower energy costs is laughable. Taking money from taxpayers, funneling it through politically connected middlemen, and subsidizing technologies that struggle to compete in the marketplace doesn’t make energy more affordable."
Mark Drajem, media director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, cast the freeze as an attack on affordability.
"At a time when so many Americans are struggling to afford skyrocketing utility bills, the Trump administration is refusing to implement this program, which would lower bills for those who most need the help. That’s a cruel blow from this administration made worse by the fact that the president had pledged to cut energy bills."
Drajem argued the economic hit runs wider than the headline number.
"The economic costs of this go far beyond the $20 billion, because these funds would unlock billions of dollars more in private investments."
A May 2025 Energy Innovation analysis, cited in the same reporting, projected the program could bring $65.5 billion in total investment and save consumers $52 billion on energy costs over 20 years. Drajem urged the administration to release the money rather than keep fighting.
"Instead of continuing this senseless attack on this program, the administration should end its attack on affordable energy and get these funds out to the homeowners and renters who desperately need them. If it keeps fighting in court that will demonstrate, yet again, that it doesn’t care about lowering people’s energy costs."
Sens. Ed Markey, Chris Van Hollen, and Sheldon Whitehouse, joined by Rep. Debbie Dingell, issued a joint statement on Aug. 4 cheering the full-court vote. They said it stopped the Trump administration’s “brazen attempt to prevent those projects, seize these funds, and break the law in the process.” Offices for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito and Rep. Frank Pallone did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
While the federal grants stayed locked, state and local green banks did not freeze in place. The U.S. Green Bank 50 coalition, made up of 56 green banks and other organizations, reported financing $12.4 billion in projects across 2024 and 2025. About $11 billion of that came from private investors.
Dan Adler, executive director of U.S. Green Bank 50, described the pivot in plain terms to Canary Media: “We’re making a virtue out of a necessity.”
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, saw a deeper lesson in the original rush to spend.
"It was painful to see EPA staffers talk about getting grants out the door like they were throwing gold bars off the Titanic, but that’s the predictable result when the government spends your money."
Fisher argued that resource-neutral permitting reform beats subsidies because it advances projects without the government picking winners and losers or generating wasteful outlays. With clearer rules, he said, builders can also trust the framework will not flip every four years.
Isaac made the same core point from the taxpayer side.
"Affordability comes from abundant, reliable energy and competition, not government handouts to politically favored organizations. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to address serious questions about executive oversight of these grants and protect taxpayers from being treated like an unlimited ATM for the Democrats’ agenda."
The green bank battle sits alongside another Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund fight. Two federal district courts in September vacated the EPA’s termination of the separate $7 billion Solar for All program, according to tracking by Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. That center also described the green bank stay terms that pause payouts through Nov. 9 and extend them if a Supreme Court petition is filed.
The administration now prepares that petition with the $20 billion still frozen. Climate United’s project plans remain on hold. Green banks continue private-heavy lending. And both sides keep arguing over whether the original awards were mandatory climate infrastructure or a politically steered pool of taxpayer cash.
Taxpayers should not have to underwrite a rushed climate slush fund while courts sort out whether any administration can claw it back.
