Trump-Appointed Judge Smacks Down EPA’s Termination of Clean Energy Grants

Read the original at Mother Jones ↗
Mother Jones · collected 2026-09-23 · by Amy Green

Quick Summary

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $7 billion in clean energy grants intended for disadvantaged communities, established under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Judge Mary S. McElroy, appointed by President Trump, found that the EPA acted contrary to Congress’s intent when it canceled the Solar for All program after Trump's 2025 inauguration. The ruling mandates that the EPA release the funding, which was set to save families $350 million annually on electricity bills and support 200,000 jobs and workforce training opportunities across various states and communities.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-23, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

In August 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Trump terminated a $7 billion Solar for All program, aimed at making solar power accessible to over 900,000 lower-income Americans. The decision was made following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which Congress believed would repeal the program's authorization and funding. However, on Friday, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the EPA acted illegally by terminating the grants already awarded under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, established during the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, determined that Congress intended for the EPA to continue administering the Solar for All grants and vacated the termination. The ruling was supported by a coalition including labor unions, environmental groups like the Conservation Law Foundation, and nonprofits such as Rhode Island Center for Justice and Solar United Neighbors, who argued that thousands of union jobs would be created if the program resumed.

While the judge's decision does not immediately guarantee the release of funds, it could lead to significant changes in how clean energy initiatives are funded and implemented across the U.S., impacting both environmental goals and job creation in disadvantaged communities.

Written for “Solar Program Revival Judgment” on 2026-10-05, grounded in this article and the 3 other(s) covering the same event.

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
22
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
14%
3 of 22 hedged
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Correction & hedging signals
95.3
corrections and hedging in what we collected; not a measure of accuracy
Outlets on this story
4
Environment
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-23 · how these are computed

Story

📰 Solar Program Revival Judgment
Environment · 4 article(s) covering the same event. See how they differ ↓

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 14% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Toronto Star · 0.87 cosine similarity
⚖️ Leans strongly left further left than this 🔴 5% hedged 1 of 22 📰 publisher trust 63
“Both articles describe a federal judge ruling that the Trump administration illegally terminated a $7 billion Solar for All program intended to help lower-income Americans, specifically mentioning it was established during the Biden era and aimed at making solar power accessible.”
Times of India
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 25% hedged 8 of 32 📰 publisher trust 59
“Both articles describe a federal judge's ruling in Rhode Island that declares the EPA's termination of the $7 billion Solar for All clean energy grant program unlawful.”
ABC News (US)
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 15% hedged 2 of 13 📰 publisher trust 59
“Article A describes a federal judge's ruling against the Trump administration's termination of clean energy grants, while Article B discusses the White House rescinding funds across various programs under legal authority.”
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 17 📰 publisher trust 72
“Both articles describe the same federal court ruling by Judge Mary McElroy on September 18, 2026, that vacated the EPA's termination of the Solar for All program.”

Publisher

Mother Jones · 226 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Amy Green
2 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 The ruling means the EPA will have to release the funding, said Nick Torrey, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.
🔮 Local risk factors could be responsible for some of the disparities, although even when such factors were accounted for the gap remained large.
Also by Amy Green
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

Climate Desk Congress EPA Inside Climate News SFA

Subjects

EPA ORG · 6× Congress ORG · 2× Inside Climate News ORG · 2× SFA ORG · 2× Trump PERSON · 2× Biden PERSON · 1× Climate Desk ORG · 1× Donald Trump PERSON · 1× The Conservation Law Foundation ORG · 1× The Environmental Protection Agency ORG · 1×

Narrative

The Solar for All (SFA) program, established during the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, provided dozens of grants for states, municipalities, tribes and nonprofits designed to reduce electric bills, create jobs, and address the greenhouse gas emissions warming the global climate.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-23
🔮 The ruling means the EPA will have to release the funding, said Nick Torrey, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Claims (22 extracted, 3 hedged)

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. asserted
story → publish → collaboration
A federal judge has declared that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $7 billion in grant funding for clean energy programs in disadvantaged communities. asserted
administration → declare → communities
The Solar for All (SFA) program, established during the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, provided dozens of grants for states, municipalities, tribes and nonprofits designed to reduce electric bills, create jobs, and address the greenhouse gas emissions warming the global climate. asserted
program → establish → climate
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) canceled the program after President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2025. asserted
Agency → cancel → 2025
The Conservation Law Foundation, Southern Environmental Law Center, Lawyers for Good Government, and Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island sued in the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of workers, businesses, nonprofits, and individuals harmed by the withdrawal of funding. asserted
Foundation → sue → funding
“Congress’s clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants,” Judge Mary S. McElroy, a Trump appointee, wrote in her ruling, issued Friday. asserted
McElroy → continue → ruling
“Defendants acted contrary to this intent, and with no other statutory authority, when they terminated the SFA program.” asserted
they → act → program
The ruling means the EPA will have to release the funding, said Nick Torrey, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. asserted
Torrey → mean → Center
“We have seen this administration try to resist and appeal and fight,” Torrey said. asserted
Torrey → see → ?
“They don’t have any excuse for sitting on this money anymore. asserted
They → have → money
They have to get this money out.” asserted
They → have → money
The EPA argued the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims and that the claims were meritless. uncertain
claims → argue → claims
The federal agency told Inside Climate News it is “reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal.” asserted
it → tell → appeal
The EPA awarded the grants in 2024 and said at the time the program would save families $350 million a year on electricity bills and support 200,000 jobs and workforce training opportunities. asserted
program → award → jobs
Among the recipients was a coalition of nonprofits in Florida, which received $156.1 million to create new and expand existing solar programs for low-income communities in the state. asserted
which → receive → state
The program was canceled before much of the funding could reach communities, according to the groups involved in the litigation. uncertain
much → cancel → litigation
In 2025 Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which repealed unobligated funding aimed at greenhouse gas emissions. asserted
which → approve → emissions
The groups argued the program’s termination was unlawful because the funding was already obligated. asserted
funding → argue → ?
The lawsuit was filed on behalf not of grant recipients but what the litigation described as “downstream beneficiaries.” asserted
litigation → file → beneficiaries
Among them were solar companies that invested in personnel and equipment based on funding awarded to the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania, a labor union that helped develop an implementation plan in Rhode Island, and a nonprofit that received a sub-award from a grant to the state of Indiana. asserted
that → invest → Indiana
Grant recipients filed two subsequent lawsuits against the EPA. asserted
recipients → file → EPA
State grant recipients also filed challenges in the Court of Federal Claims. uncertain
recipients → file → Claims
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support