200亿美元可疑的拜登时期气候拨款仍被冻结,特朗普政府着眼最高法院之争
$20 Billion In Suspicious Biden-Era Climate Grants Remains Frozen As Trump Administration Eyes Supreme Court Fight

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/20-billion-suspicious-biden-era-climate-grants-remains-frozen-trump-administration-eyes

一项200亿美元的拜登时期气候拨款计划仍处于冻结状态,尽管哥伦比亚特区巡回法院裁定,环保署终止《通胀削减法案》拨款很可能违反了联邦法律。法院于8月4日以6比4裁定特朗普政府败诉,随后将资金冻结至11月9日,以便可能向最高法院上诉。环保署署长李·泽尔丁于2025年3月取消这些拨款,理由是受助者存在利益冲突和自我交易。最大受益者“气候联合”获得了约70亿美元拨款。包括美国能源研究所在内的批评者称该计划为与政治挂钩的“贿赂基金”,而卡托研究所的特拉维斯·费舍尔则支持审批改革而非补贴。环保组织表示,扣留这笔钱阻碍了可降低能源成本的投资。此争议发生在国会通过《一个大而美的法案》废除该计划授权条款之后。它可能演变为一场关于纳税人支出和行政权力的最高法院对决。

相关文章

原文

Authored by AG News Staff via American Greatness,

A $20 billion Biden-era climate grant program remains frozen despite a federal appeals court ruling against the Trump administration's efforts to cancel the funding. The case could wind up at the Supreme Court in a showdown over taxpayer spending and executive authority.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 6-4 on Aug. 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency likely violated federal law when it attempted to terminate grants authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act.

However, the court subsequently agreed to keep the money frozen through Nov. 9 while the administration prepares a potential Supreme Court appeal.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin canceled the grants in March 2025, citing concerns about conflicts of interest and potential self-dealing among recipients. Climate United, the largest beneficiary, was awarded approximately $7 billion.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, urged the Supreme Court to intervene.

"The Biden administration rushed $20 billion in taxpayer money into the hands of politically connected organizations, creating what looks like a taxpayer-funded slush fund for its climate agenda," Isaac told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The grants were part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, established to finance clean energy projects through nonprofit organizations.

Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, criticized the government's reliance on subsidies.

"Resource-neutral permitting reform is superior to subsidies and grants because it advances energy projects without the government picking winners and losers," Fisher said.

Environmental groups defended the program, arguing that withholding the money prevents investments that could reduce energy costs.

The legal dispute also follows Congress' repeal of the provision establishing the program through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com