States Sue Trump Administration Over Clean Energy Funding Cuts

California and 12 other states sued the federal government on Feb. 18 to force the release of congressionally approved grants for clean energy programs, arguing that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the funding.

The lawsuit, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, takes aim at the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies for revoking allocations as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and related environmental laws.

The lawsuit follows the rescinding of $1.2 billion earmarked for California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES), a program meant to promote technologies to supplant fossil fuels in utilities, public transit, trucking, and ports.

“It’s as simple as Congress has the power of the purse, not the executive branch, and Congress already appropriated this funding,” Bonta said in an interview on Feb. 17, prior to the lawsuit’s announcement.

The coalition includes Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. It argues that federal officials must implement laws as enacted, and without excessive vetoes. The Trump administration has sought to increase U.S. oil output while dedicating less support for wind, solar, and other renewable sources.

The Democratic attorneys general of the coalition of states have taken legal action over numerous federal funding decisions. In December 2025, California led a suit by 16 states and the District of Columbia against suspensions of $1.8 billion for electric vehicle charging stations, arguing that the federal government had overstepped its authority with Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act appropriations.

Similarly, on Feb. 11, California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota sued the Department of Health and Human Services to reverse the withholding of $600 million in public health grants. A federal judge stopped the cut, granting a temporary restraining order amid allegations of political retaliation.

The states alleged that “political animus and disagreements about unrelated topics, such as federal immigration enforcement, political protest, and clean energy,” were behind the cuts.

Bonta has also indicated plans to challenge the rescission by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the 2009 endangerment finding, a key aspect of climate regulations that determined greenhouse gases to be a threat to public health.

On Feb. 18, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA’s action.

The EPA’s rescission, effective on April 20, contends that the Clean Air Act does not authorize greenhouse gas regulations for global climate concerns, noting minimal impacts from U.S. vehicle emissions reductions.

“In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rescinding the Administrator’s 2009 findings of contribution and endangerment and repealing all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines to effectuate the best reading of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(1),” the EPA stated.

Reuters contributed to this report.