The agency is issuing termination notices to 781 recipients—nearly double the number of canceled grants previously disclosed.
In a recent court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed plans to revoke 781 grants issued under President Joe Biden’s administration—nearly double the number previously reported. The disclosure, made in the case Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture, marks the first time the agency has publicly confirmed the full scope of the terminations, which include all of its environmental justice grants. The move has prompted legal challenges over whether the EPA is legally allowed to rescind these funds.
According to Daniel Coogan, an EPA career official, the agency has already notified roughly 377 grantees and plans to issue cancellation notices to the remaining 404 within two weeks. Prior to this filing, the EPA hadn’t officially confirmed the cancellation of 781 grants, though a list obtained by The Washington Post suggested more than 450 grants—totaling over $1.5 billion—had been frozen or canceled.
The now-revoked grants were intended to support community-level responses to climate-related challenges, including wildfire smoke protection in Washington state and flood defenses for Alaska Native communities. Most of the grants were administered by the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights—an office the Trump administration aims to eliminate as part of its restructuring of the agency. Last week, officials informed more than 450 staff members in environmental justice and diversity roles that they would be terminated or reassigned.
A coalition of environmental groups, including the Rhode Island-based Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council, has filed suit against the Biden-era funding freeze. The lawsuit, which targets several federal departments including the EPA, argues that the administration is unlawfully halting disbursement of funds from the 2022 climate law and the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The watershed council, for example, has been unable to access a $1 million Forest Service grant since January.
On April 15, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy issued a preliminary injunction requiring the release of frozen funds during ongoing litigation. The judge, a Trump appointee, concluded that the nonprofits had demonstrated that the freeze was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Federal regulations require the EPA to thoroughly review each grant before termination. Coogan stated that agency leaders had evaluated each one to decide whether to proceed, modify, or cancel the award based on alignment with administration goals. However, legal experts dispute this claim. Jillian Blanchard, with the nonprofit Lawyers for Good Government, contends that no such review occurred. She said most grantees received no communication from the EPA prior to the court’s injunction, despite the agency claiming otherwise.
EPA spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment on the matter, citing ongoing litigation.
Local leaders argue that canceling the grants could have serious public health implications. In Hampden County, Massachusetts—where poor air quality is common and over 49,000 people suffer from asthma—a $1 million EPA grant was supposed to fund home-based health initiatives. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey criticized the decision, calling it a direct threat to public health.
Zealan Hoover, a former senior adviser to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, said the cancellations could deal a severe blow to communities relying on the funding. He emphasized that withdrawing the grants not only violates legal obligations but also hampers local efforts to improve energy efficiency and environmental conditions.
0 Comments