EPA knew it wrongfully canceled dozens of environmental grants, documents show

Trump officials knew their legal justification for terminating dozens of Environmental Protection Agency grants was flawed, according to documents and internal emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

An agency lawyer warned officials that they had cited contractual language that did not apply to many of the grants the EPA has ended in recent weeks, advising them that terminations could be reversed if recipients challenged them administratively or in court.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the EPA has targeted billions of dollars in grants authorized by the Biden administration. This month, the agency announced the cancellation of an additional 400 grants, totaling $1.7 billion, many of which were meant to improve air and water quality and strengthen resilience to natural disasters.

Grant recipients received emails in late February stating that their grants had been terminated on the grounds that they no longer fit the agency’s priorities, referring to a clause in their grants’ general terms and conditions allowing for awards to be voided.

However, the clause in question applied only to grants issued between Aug, 13, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2024, and almost half of the terminated grants were finalized or updated after Sept. 30. In a Feb. 25 email obtained by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and shared with The Post, an assistant general counsel alerted officials that terminations issued by several regional offices had contained this “significant error.”

The email also acknowledged that the terminations “may also be encompassed” by a Feb. 21 preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge blocking the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders targeting equity and environmental justice programs. That preliminary injunction was lifted by an appeals court on March 14.

In a follow-up email on March 3, the EPA attorney said the office had learned the decision to cancel “the EJ grants” was “made with the knowledge” that the terms and conditions rationale did not apply to all of them, but that no retractions would be forthcoming. Appeals of these wrongful cancellations will “play out via the disputes process, or litigation, for those recipients that choose to pursue those avenues,” the lawyer added.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on Monday, nine Democratic senators on the environment committee challenged the grant terminations, pointing out that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act “directed EPA to distribute $3 billion to improve environmental protection in communities facing economic hardship.”

The senators added that “Congress specifically articulated in the statute the activities for which the funds can be awarded,” including climate risk, air pollution and toxin reduction, and health risks from heat and wildfires.

“Any attempt to withhold these funds violates the Impoundment Control Act and Congress’s constitutional Article I spending authority,” the senators said.

In response to a request for comment, an EPA spokesperson said, “As the Trump Administration reins in wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, EPA will continue terminating assistance agreements in line with those terms and conditions.”

Julia Haggerty, an associate professor of geography at Montana State University, worked with local partners for almost a year to assemble a competitive application to create a program designed to provide technical assistance and resources to underserved communities.

The $10 million program, which launched in May, worked to address a range of issues in the region, including flooding and water contamination, lead pipes and pollution from mining.

The EPA finalized an update to the program’s agreement, which included new terms and conditions, on Dec. 27, according to documents reviewed by The Post.

Beginning in January, the program’s funding oscillated between being frozen and unfrozen. The EPA terminated the grant on Feb. 21, saying the “award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities,” according to an email reviewed by The Post. The university has appealed the termination, citing breach of contract.

“It was just done so haphazardly and carelessly,” Haggerty said. “As a public land grant university, we don’t have the kind of resources to withstand this interruption in access to funding.”

A former EPA official who worked on related issues during the first Trump administration said the contractual language was updated by the White House Office of Management and Budget to provide predictability to grantees.

“The updated terms and conditions require the government to be specific about its reasons for terminating grant agreements,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing legal challenges with the agency. In this case, the official added, the EPA’s reason was not listed in the grant agreement, “so the agency can’t just terminate.”