‘Green scam’ or political retaliation? Congress to probe Trump’s cuts to renewables

When Donald Trump’s administration announced last October that it was cancelling nearly eight billion dollars for the “Green New Scam”, it looked like a show of strength. But after November’s midterms, in which Democrats won the House and Senate, the decision on 223 energy projects is becoming a question the White House will have to answer.

“Nearly $8 billion for the Green New Scam, which is meant to drive the left’s climate agenda, has been cancelled.”

That was how budget office director Russ Vought summed up the move on 1 October 2025. The Department of Energy later clarified that it was ending 321 grants for 223 projects worth a total of $7.56 billion.

The projects included hydrogen hubs, transmission lines, battery storage and charging infrastructure. All the affected projects had one thing in common: they were located in 16 states where voters had not backed Trump by a majority in 2024. Democrats already described the move as politically motivated and likely to drive up electricity prices, and California later filed a lawsuit.

This year’s elections have changed the situation. Democrats will control both chambers of Congress and gain committee positions, the ability to hold hearings and the right to request documents. A decision that was meant to settle the dispute over the direction of US energy policy could thus become the subject of an investigation. Were the projects cancelled because they were not economically viable, or because of where they were located?

Behind the headline figures are specific projects. California’s ARCHES hydrogen hub stood to lose up to $1.2 billion, while a transmission project in Minnesota faced the loss of $464 million. These projects show what the decision means for grids, industry and energy prices.

ARCHES

The most prominent individual case is California’s ARCHES hydrogen hub (Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems), which, according to earlier reports, stood to lose up to $1.2 billion in federal support.

It is a public-private partnership that aimed to accelerate hydrogen projects at industrial scale and build infrastructure in California for producing, transporting, storing and using hydrogen, particularly in heavy-duty transport, shipping, aviation and ports. It brings together more than 400 partners, including manufacturers, buyers and pipeline developers.

The organisation says its projects have the potential to create more than 220,000 jobs and deliver $2.95 billion in annual economic benefits from 2030, including healthcare savings thanks to cleaner air. These are ARCHES’s own estimates and have not been independently verified. The organisation’s website also reports that California suspended the hub’s activities following a change in federal funding.

Minnesota

In Minnesota, the October announcement had its biggest impact on energy infrastructure. The Department of Energy cancelled 12 grants in the state. The largest was a $464 million grant awarded in 2023 to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, together with the Great Plains Institute and grid operators MISO and SPP.

The GRIP programme funding was intended to support five high-voltage transmission projects across seven states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) and supplement $1.3 billion from energy companies.

The aim was to free up capacity to connect nearly 30 gigawatts of new generation and ease grid congestion, which contributes to rising electricity prices. A $50 million grant to Minnesota Power to upgrade a 465-mile direct-current line between Minnesota and North Dakota was also cancelled.

The dispute, however, did not end with the grant cancellations. In July 2026, the Department of Energy acknowledged in a court filing that the decision to cancel the grants had been based “solely on the political identity” of the recipient state. The Minnesota Power grant had already been reinstated in June, and in May the Department of Commerce confirmed that the Department of Energy would honour its commitment to the $464 million grant.

Other projects

Not all the projects were cancelled for political reasons alone. From the outset, the Department of Energy cited economic viability and benefits for US energy needs. The question after the midterms is therefore not just whether the grants were misguided, but also exactly how the administration made its decisions and why it reinstated some projects. That is what the Democratic majority in Congress may start asking from January 2027.