EPA Cancels All Environmental Justice Grants
These grants fund many “panda” projects that sound good but actually direct monies to eco-activsts and their anti-American antics.
Under Biden, it was difficult to discern which cabinet member or agency head was the most incompetent and contemptible.
Under President Donald Trump, it will be challenging to discern who is the hardest-working and effective.
That being said, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is definitely in the mix. The EPA is canceling 781 environmental justice grants, all awarded during the Biden administration.
This move, disclosed in a recent court filing, is nearly double the number previously reported and represents a sweeping rollback of funding intended to fund progressive activism, climate cult hysteria, and gin up racial division.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of canceling almost 800 grants, including all aimed at promoting environmental justice, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing comments by an agency official in a court filing.
The number of grants slated for cancellation is twice the amount previously reported, the Post reported. The filing marks the first public acknowledgement by the agency of the total number of grants slated for termination, the newspaper reported.
The newspaper cited a document filed last week in a federal court case in Rhode Island. The case was brought by a coalition of nonprofits who challenged the Trump administration’s freezing of billions of dollars in grants that were authorized by Congress under climate investment and infrastructure laws passed under previous president Joe Biden.
“EPA is in the process of sending out the formal termination/cancellation notices to all of the impacted grantees,” EPA career official Daniel Coogan wrote in the filing.
Kudos to @epaleezeldin for cutting 781 grants related to the environmental justice hoax. Winning.https://t.co/PrjMIVyjPK pic.twitter.com/PQQzYgZOT9
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) April 30, 2025
Of course, the mainstream media and climate cult minions make it seem as if this move will lead to the poisoning of minorities and harm women, children, and those who identify as either or both.
The grants would have provided funding for projects to help communities cope with worsening impacts of the climate crisis. Examples of plans to put the money to use in recipients’ communities are coastal flood protection in Alaska Native villages and sealing homes against wildfire smoke in Washington state.
Local officials said losing the grants will interfere with their ability to keep constituents healthy.
In Hampden County, Massachusetts, the air quality is frequently unhealthy, and over 49,000 adults and children living there suffer from asthma. A three-year EPA grant of nearly $1 million was intended to provide support for environmental public health projects to reduce the risk of asthma.
However, I suspect these concerns are actually the “pandas” for eco-activists. During a recent interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lead Elon Musk explained that many special concerns were used to cover waste, fraud, and abuse, using the adorable animal to make an effective analogy.
“These programs are along the lines of “save the baby pandas,” and of course who wouldn’t want to save the baby pandas? In some cases they’ve got a show panda which they’ll trot out for special occasions.
In a lot of cases they don’t even have a show panda. There’s not even one panda. When we ask for pictures we don’t even get one panda. What’s a billion dollars get you if you don’t even get one panda?”
🚨ELON MUSK: "These programs are along the lines of "save the baby pandas," and of course who wouldn't want to save the baby pandas? In some cases they've got a show panda which they'll trot out for special occasions. In a lot of cases they don't even have a show panda. There's… pic.twitter.com/kYMRiCgsqa
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) May 2, 2025
How do I know that analogy effectively hit progressives in the fiscal Achilles’ heel? Because the uber-liberal Mediaite decried it as a “bewildering tangent“. LOL!!!!!
But I digress. Here is an example of the anti-American antics that environmental justice grants have funded.
$52 million EPA “Environmental Justice” grant for Minneapolis Foundation, in partnership with NDN Collective, a communist org that wanted to close Mount Rushmore because it’s a “symbol of white supremacy”.
People need to go to prison over the Inflation Reduction Act. https://t.co/BGEbCIUtWQ pic.twitter.com/w87NfJ60jf
— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) March 12, 2025
I am looking forward to less “environmental justice” and more real concern about real environmentalism, such as good land management practices, reducing the risk of massive wildfires.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When trouble is afoot, the left simply trots out a few of their sycophantic slaves…people of color, the poor or downtrodden and turns it into a race issue.
mmmmm…panda…delicious
I’m sure Xi eats panda often. He kind of looks like one.
Can’t people in Washington State seal their own homes without the gov doing it??
There are wildfires in the PNW every summer, as there have been from time immemorial. A few days of smoke impact the city dwellers every year., and people with respiratory issues stay inside.
It would be unsafe to “seal” a house, but I suppose anyone who found this life threatening could arrange to put masking tape around window and doors, or better yet get an air purifier.
Even poor people can afford a roll of masking tape.
One thing we need clarity on is whether there was an authorization from Congress allowing funds to be spent but NOT a specific appropriation of funds that must be spent
OR
Both a specific authorization and a specific appropriation which would require the expenditure as a specific line item.
Where there’s just an authorization then IMO there’s no mandate that funds be spent b/c Congress didn’t make a specific appropriation of funds for the specific purpose. Given how many consecutive cycles the budget process has gone on as a series of CR with pork barrel amendments as opposed to a ‘regular order’ markup I suspect there’s a significant % of the budget that lacks a specific appropriation which seems to grant discretion to the Executive.
I’d argue differently. If Congress specifies how funds are spent, the Executive should have to spend them that way if they are spent at all. Deciding that funds won’t be spent on the earmark doesn’t mean the funds can be spent elsewhere by the Executive, they simply won’t be spent.
The Congress allocates, the Executive spends. The authors of the Constitution separated these functions on purpose (or it’s a serendipitous result of the actual language of the Constitution considering what is written there and what is not). The first so Congress could control the Executive’s spending, the second so the Executive can refuse to spend on what it considers wasteful, useless, or not in the best interests of the country or its people. Congress decides how much is can be spent, the Executive decides whether or not the allocated funds should be spent. Each branch has a check on the other with regard to spending.
I believe this is an unavoidable construction of the Constitution, considering other elements of the Constitution’s separation of powers and that nowhere is Congress given authority over funds once allocated and subsequently delivered to the Executive’s control. Spending is an executive function. Congress may direct that spending only insofar as designating that for which certain funds are allocated, but it can’t require the Executive to do the actual spending. (We can see this in government agencies. At the end of a fiscal year, they scramble to spend authorized funding. This scramble is not always successful, meaning that for lack of spending, allocated funds are frequently not spent. This failure is not a matter for Congress’ concern, or at least it never has been.)
The Supreme Court’s position is that once Congress appropriates money for a specific purpose the executive must spend it as Congress directed. If Congress specified who should get the money, that recipient must get it; if it only specified the purpose then it can go to anyone who fits the criteria. But the executive cannot choose not to spend the money.
Chiseling the woke c*nts off the government tit, one broken tooth at a time.
Winning.
Even more astonishing is that the administration recognized that EPA’s OPP was woefully *understaffed* and added over 100 scientists to help with the huge backlog of risk assessments. And if you were reading Project 2025 carefully that’s exactly what was proposed.
“Climate crisis”. WHAT climate crisis!?
Exactly. Every penny of Climate Change spending should be frozen and packed in all the extra Antarctica ice we are reported to now have.
Every time I hear the phrase “environmental justice,” I think of the Aesop’s fable about the frogs who demanded a king.
And what happened to them.
Also, from the lead photo, somebody needs to explain to the EPA that “tagging pandas” is not what they think it is.
The word “justice” as employed by the vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats, is synonymous with “grift” and “racketeering.”
You left out “extortion” and “bribery”.
Yes; those, too.
Why, exactly, did the EPA have control of ANY grant money, at all, for any reason.
Because Congress said so.
stop sending money to the local governments who are doing “land equity” garbage…pete butts and his agenda lives on
Depends on what we refer to as ‘land equity’. One of my major pet peeves is large urban metros who ‘outsource’ the environmental harms real, potential and imagined to other areas. Shipping out trash v being forced to handle disposal internally as one example. Demands on rural America to comply with lefty wokiesta urban hipster policy preferences about land use and conservation practices is another. Then there’s oil/nat Gas/coal policies where urban areas refuse to build new or maintain older facilities for drilling, refining and production of electricity instead choosing unrealistic solar/wind to accompany their NIMBY policies. Perhaps there’s an argument that the places who still produce the energy, deal with the trash and the environmental hazards that the NIMBY metros refuse to allow should get compensation for those environmental hazards their communities endure.
“Environmental Justice?” Okay, how about East Palestine, Ohio? And how about putting Sam Brinton (look it up) in charge of the Hanford cleanup? We live 100 miles downriver from Hanford, and to put it ever so mildly, we were not amused.
Good… My tax money is not to be used on frivolity or false crisis.
Zeldin is doing his job. Congress must now eliminate these budgetary items and drastically reduce EPA’s discretion to spend future funds.
Everyone who believes that Congress will accomplish this (while Rs have both Houses), then I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Another great article by Leslie Eastman: “… harm women, children, and those who identify as either or both”!
Leave a Comment