Trump's climate "fraud" lie collapsed in court
His EPA chief Lee Zeldin kept sowing baseless doubt about $20 billion in climate funding in Congress today anyway.
Support journalism that calls out lies — and empowers you to do the same.
Since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s second term, his loyalists have tried to accuse recipients of $20 billion in climate change funding of fraud, but those allegations recently collapsed during a federal appeals court hearing.
“To be clear we're not accusing anybody of fraud, okay?” Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth acknowledged in court, trying to defend the freezing of the congressionally appropriated money.
Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin and some federal prosecutors haven’t gotten the message.
The “green banks” at the heart of this litigation had planned projects across the nation before the Trump admin’s funding freeze. Find out what they are for your state here.
Backpedaling in the D.C. Circuit
The Trump administration repeatedly has tried to criminally investigate and freeze the assets of recipients of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created by Joe Biden’s signature Inflation Reduction Act. So far, those attempts have failed.
In February, Trump’s Jan. 6-defending former acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin unsuccessfully tried to get a federal judge to sign off on a warrant, an astonishing failure given the low burden of proof. One senior prosecutor inside his office, Denise Cheung, quit rather than comply with a demand to execute an asset freeze, and Trump’s ex-criminal defense attorney turned Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove unsuccessfully tried to get at least one other U.S. Attorney’s office to do the same, the Washington Post reported.
The next month, Zeldin issued a press release announcing that money already allocated to them by Congress would be terminated out of concern for “potential fraud,” but the government never produced evidence of fraud in federal court. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found those grant terminations unlawful in a ruling leading to yesterday’s appellate arguments in the D.C. Circuit.
That’s where Trump’s Justice Department admitted that they are not accusing anyone of fraud.
“I don't want to suggest otherwise,” Roth emphasized. “It's a risk issue, right? Does EPA have the tools and the oversight that it needs under this contract to ensure that doesn't happen?”
Conservative U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, pressed Roth on that point: “Doesn’t the notice of termination accuse — I mean, does it suggest — that the grantees engaged in waste fraud and abuse? Those are the reasons given for the notice of termination.”
“I don't think it says it in those terms, your honor,” Roth replied.
“This isn’t Fox News”
The timing of the admission was remarkable.
One day after the hearing, Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) confronted Zeldin with the Justice Department’s courtroom admissions during a congressional hearing today, in a contentious exchange roughly one hour and 30 minutes into the proceedings.
“You’re alleging criminality,” Barragán told Zeldin. “You did so in a Fox News interview. You said that’s what the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was.”
Interrupting Zeldin’s cross-talk, Barragán continued: “You shouldn’t be doing that if you cannot proffer the evidence.”
Referring to Congress, Barragán added: “This is not Fox News. We’re not just going to let you make allegations without that evidence.”
After the 2020 election, Trump and his surrogates made outlandish fraud allegations during press conferences, but they repudiated those claims as soon as they walked into court. Multiple Trump lawyers made this verbatim statement in court: “This is not a fraud case.” One of those attorneys was Rudy Giuliani.
Despite the collapse of the fraud claims, the grant recipients still remain unable to collect congressionally authorized funding to fulfill their mandates. The D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay of Judge Chutkan’s order to disburse the money, pending a further ruling. It remains unclear whether the judges will rule on the merits of the dispute or more technical issues, like jurisdiction.
Superb, Adam. Thank you. I'll be following the progress on this.