US appeals court rules Trump administration wrongly ended $20bn climate fund

A divided US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on 4 August 2026 that the Trump administration improperly terminated the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $20 billion programme authorised by Congress to finance clean energy projects. The court sided with nonprofits, including Climate United Fund, which had been selected to distribute the grants.

The decision was put on hold for several days to allow the Environmental Protection Agency time to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The EPA had frozen the funds in a Citibank account and terminated the grants after Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the nonprofits of mismanagement and potential fraud. The nonprofits denied wrongdoing and sued, arguing the termination violated the law and the Constitution.

The fund, created by the Inflation Reduction Act, was designed to support small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and low-emission transport. A lower court had previously ruled the EPA likely violated the law by terminating the grants, a decision the appeals court upheld by a 6-4 margin.

The 16 left-rated digests led on the court’s ruling as a victory for clean energy and a setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle Biden’s climate policies. The Associated Press, whose full report was printed below, included the $20 billion figure and quoted Climate United Fund’s statement denying wrongdoing and accusing the administration of false allegations. It also reported Zeldin’s claim of potential fraud but noted the EPA did not provide evidence in court.

The left-rated reports carried the nonprofits’ argument that the administration violated the Constitution by not spending money authorised by Congress. They also included the detail that the EPA shifted its position from fraud allegations to general concerns about oversight when pressed for evidence.

The 10 centre-rated digests led on the court’s decision as a legal rebuke of the administration’s termination of the programme. Washington Top News, whose full report was printed below, described the fund as a “green bank” and noted the administration’s argument that the case was a contract dispute, not a constitutional one. It reported the EPA’s position that no law compels it to make the grants.

The centre-rated digests carried the $20 billion figure and the stay of the decision to allow Supreme Court intervention. They also included the administration’s claim of broad power to cancel grants, which a three-judge panel had initially upheld before the full court revisited the case.

The two right-rated digests led on the court’s ruling as a legal setback for the administration but did not mention the $20 billion figure. The Times of India’s digest noted the EPA might seek Supreme Court intervention, while The News-Gazette’s digest included the lower court’s finding that the nonprofits should have access to the funds.

Neither right-rated digest mentioned the nonprofits’ denial of wrongdoing or the EPA’s failure to provide evidence of fraud in court.

None of the right-rated digests mentioned the $20 billion value of the fund. None of the right-rated or centre-rated digests reported the nonprofits’ statement denying wrongdoing or the EPA’s shift from fraud allegations to general oversight concerns when pressed for evidence.

The Washington Top News report did not include the detail that the EPA did not provide evidence of fraud in court, which the Associated Press reported.