EPA illegally terminates $2.8B Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program

The Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in August 2022, established the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program and directed the EPA to deploy $3 billion — later revised in appropriations to $2.8 billion — to nonprofit organizations and local governments for pollution reduction and climate resilience projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities disproportionately burdened by environmental harm. Grantees included community organizations in neighborhoods adjacent to industrial facilities, tribal governments, and municipal agencies working on heat-island mitigation and flood protection.

Acting on executive orders President Trump signed on January 20, 2025, directing agencies to pause or wind down "environmental justice" programs, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin ordered the termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program. EPA staff responsible for administering the grants were fired, and active grantees were directed to cease work and close out their projects. By late 2025, E&E News reported that the EPA was pressing remaining grantees to shut down entirely. The termination extinguished hundreds of funded projects before they could be completed. Event date is approximate: formal termination actions occurred through 2025 and into early 2026.

On June 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel of the District of South Carolina ruled that the EPA's cancellation of the program was "illegal" and voided the agency's termination actions, finding that the executive orders could not override a specific congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The court declined to issue a permanent injunction requiring reinstatement of the program, however, concluding that ordering the government to rehire fired staff and reconstitute disbanded operations appeared "impractical." Gergel also denied a motion to extend the program's September grant-award deadline, leaving hundreds of community projects without a mechanism for reinstatement despite the ruling's finding of illegality. The decision illustrates how administrative dismantling — firing specialized staff, canceling contracts, and dispersing institutional knowledge — can render executive action practically irreversible even after a court finds it unlawful.