2026-07-26 · contested story

Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him

In court filings made public in July 2026, the Trump administration acknowledged that it canceled nearly $8 billion in clean energy grants to 284 projects 'based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state'—specifically targeting states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 and had two Democratic senators. The admission came after Energy Secretary Chris Wright had repeatedly testified to Congress that 'No decisions were made on politics,' insisting the cuts were 'business decisions' based on merit. The filings revealed that while the Department of Energy had recommended 624 grants for termination across all states, the White House Office of Management and Budget selected only 284—all but one located in states that voted Democratic—while preserving the remaining 340 grants in Republican-leaning states. Left-leaning outlets like The Guardian, NBC News, and MSNBC frame this as an 'unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal' aid and a 'fundamental corruption of how federal tax dollars are allocated,' with Democrats calling it 'outright un-American' and potentially impeachable. Center outlets like AP News and The Hill present the admission as a straightforward contradiction of previous statements, noting the administration's claim that the filing 'is a misrepresentation' referring only to 'timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves.' Right-leaning sources are notably absent from this coverage—National Review's feed on antisemitism contains no mention of this story, and Reason magazine's coverage focuses entirely on unrelated topics like drone attacks and denaturalization. This silence itself constitutes a form of framing, suggesting the story either doesn't merit attention or doesn't fit preferred narratives about government overreach.

How each side frames it

left
"weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing and infrastructure aid in his second term"
"fundamental corruption of how federal tax dollars are allocated"
"sounds an awful lot like an impeachable offense"
"it's hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power"
"Team Trump approves disaster aid requests from red states, while rejecting comparable requests from blue states. Team Trump curtails healthcare funds, but only for states the White House doesn't like. Team Trump tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for social services programs in five states, but only blue states were impacted"
center
"The stunning admission offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing and infrastructure aid in his second term. Far from rooting out the sort of misspending that Mr. Trump sees as rife in Washington, the White House has instead sought to leverage the budget as a tool to assist its allies — or as a cudgel to hurt the president's foes"
"In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for the US energy department said of the report: 'That is a misrepresentation of the court filing. None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.' The acknowledgment of political considerations 'was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves', the spokesperson claimed"
"Federal officials offered the new details about the grant cancellations as part of an agreement with plaintiffs meant to spare the government an exhaustive, evidence-uncovering process known as discovery, the court filings said. That process could have required federal agencies to hand over more damaging records"
"DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state, i.e., whether the recipient's location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State"
"Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing Friday, saying the administration had 'weaponized' the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views"
right
"paraphrased: National Review's May 2016 issue and RSS feed contain no coverage of this story whatsoever"
"paraphrased: Reason's coverage during this period focuses exclusively on drone attacks on UFC events, denaturalization efforts, and antisemitism, with no mention of energy grant cancellations"
"paraphrased: No right-leaning sources in the provided materials offered any defense, criticism, or even acknowledgment of the grant cancellations"

What each side left out

The left left out — covered by the The Guardian & NBC News
The left left out — covered by the The Guardian & AP News
The center left out — covered by the Yahoo News/MSNBC
The center left out — covered by the Yahoo News/MSNBC
The right left out — covered by the The Guardian & AP News & NBC News & The Hill & CNN

What's actually true?

[verified] The Trump administration canceled 284 grants totaling $7.5-8 billion for clean energy projects
[verified] All 16 states that lost funding voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 and have two Democratic senators (with one exception)
[verified] The Department of Energy recommended 624 grants for termination, but OMB only canceled 284
[verified] The remaining 340 grants not canceled all had ties to states that voted for Trump or have at least one Republican senator
[verified] Energy Secretary Chris Wright testified to Congress in June 2026 that 'No decisions were made on politics'
[verified] New Jersey was set to receive more than $156 million for 'Solar for All' program for low-income households
[verified] Russell Vought announced the cancellations on social media, calling it cutting 'Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda'
[verified] The court filing was part of a lawsuit filed by University of California researchers in June 2025

The narrative clash

Whether politics influenced the grant termination decisions
Left: DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state
Right: None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations
What the court filing admission actually referred to
Left: the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state, i.e., whether the recipient's location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State
Right: The acknowledgment of political considerations 'was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves', the spokesperson claimed
Chris Wright's previous congressional testimony
Left: No decisions were made on politics. I keep hearing that charge. It's bullshit. We're going to say it a million times
Right: DOE accepts that neither the inclusion of the ARCHES grant nor any other grants in the October notice tranche was based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor
The rationale for canceling grants
Left: did not adequately advance the nation's energy needs or were not economically viable
Right: the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state

11 sources analyzed

The Guardian US Associated Press NBC News CNN Jezebel The Hill Yahoo! Search Reason Nat Review nj.com chicagobusiness.com

Perspectivity reads the coverage — not just who published it.

Read the full interactive analysis →