Washington, D.C. – A U.S. district judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration acted unlawfully when it canceled $7.6 billion in clean energy grants to states that supported Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The ruling comes amid growing legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle federal clean energy initiatives.

Judge Finds Equal Protection Violation

In a decision issued on Monday, January 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta determined that the Trump administration’s actions violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

“Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily—if not exclusively—based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024,” Judge Mehta wrote.

The decision highlights the administration’s targeting of Democratic-led states such as California, Colorado, New Jersey, Washington, and Minnesota, all of which had multiple clean energy projects affected.

Grants and Clean Energy Projects Affected

The canceled grants supported hundreds of initiatives aimed at advancing renewable energy technologies, including:

• Battery production plants
• Hydrogen technology research and development
• Offshore wind projects

For example, up to $1.2 billion had been allocated to a California hub focused on accelerating hydrogen technology, while up to $1 billion was slated for a hydrogen project in the Pacific Northwest.

The Trump administration announced the cuts in October 2025, during a government shutdown, as part of a campaign to pressure Democratic-led states. Trump publicly stated on One America News (OAN) that projects associated with the Democratic Party could be “permanently cut.”

Russell Vought, then-director of the Office of Management and Budget, echoed this on social media, saying funding for what he called the “Left’s climate agenda” had been canceled.

Legal Challenge by States and Environmental Groups

St. Paul, Minnesota, along with a coalition of environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit contesting the administration’s decision. Their legal argument emphasized that the grant cancellations were politically motivated, violating federal law and the Constitution.

The court’s ruling represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back federal clean energy programs.

Department of Energy Response

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy stated that the administration disagrees with the ruling. Officials argued that each project was reviewed individually and “did not meet the standards necessary to justify the continued spending of taxpayer dollars.”

The Trump administration has consistently framed its energy policy around reducing federal spending, prioritizing fossil fuel development, and curtailing what it considers wasteful investments in renewable energy.

Broader Context: Offshore Wind and Renewable Energy

Monday’s decision came just hours after another federal judge ruled in favor of resuming construction on a major offshore wind farm in Rhode Island and Connecticut, providing a temporary reprieve for the renewable energy industry.

Trump has long opposed offshore wind projects, citing concerns over costs, impacts on wildlife, and the administration’s broader energy agenda, which favors oil, gas, and coal production. He has repeatedly called climate change a hoax, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.

Implications for Clean Energy Policy

The court’s ruling reinforces the principle that federal grant decisions cannot be politically motivated. It also signals judicial resistance to attempts by the Trump administration to selectively undermine renewable energy projects. Experts say the decision could serve as a precedent for future cases challenging federal interference in state-led clean energy initiatives.

Conclusion

The ruling by Judge Mehta is a critical victory for Democratic-led states, environmental groups, and the clean energy sector. As the Trump administration continues its efforts to roll back federal support for renewable energy, legal challenges like this may increasingly define the future of U.S. clean energy policy.