In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and President Biden signed it into law. This legislation included major investments in economic development, energy, and climate projects around the country. Many of the IRA’s programs are also part of the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which requires that at least 40% of the benefits of certain federal investments go to communities defined as ‘disadvantaged’ using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CJEST). CJEST identifies communities that are confronted with more pollution sources, have greater climate vulnerability, and have experienced less historic investment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility to award $3 billion in environmental and climate justice block grants from the IRA through Sept. 30, 2026. Some of this funding is going to organizations, through subgrants from pass-through funders who have been selected for the EPA’s Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program. EPA is awarding other portions of this through Community Change Grants, valued at almost $1.6 billion in total, though much of this funding has not yet been obligated to groups.
We know to follow the science, environmental protection should be implemented with a justice lens and a data-driven approach to reduce observed health disparities in our country.
But the incoming Trump administration poses a clear threat to environmental justice priorities, and many of the President’s closest allies have demonstrated hostility towards environmental justice work. And not all the congressionally appropriated IRA funding will be awarded by the time the new Trump administration comes into office. Many people, including we at UCS, are concerned that this money will be pulled back, that grant coordination and support will slow down or halt, or that awarded monies will never materialize.
Ignoring the facts has a cost
Pulling back environmental justice funding doesn’t just defy science: it’s unjust, plain and simple. There is overwhelming evidence that communities of color and low-income communities are living with the realities of disinvestment, more sources of pollution, more exposure to hazardous facilities, and higher climate vulnerability. We see this for air pollution, water pollution, enforcement of environmental laws, and hazardous waste. Stopping or slowing down work that is aimed at remedying long-standing environmental injustices is either putting your head in the sand and ignoring these harms—or, worse, recognizing these harms and yet willfully forcing communities to continue to experience them. This is why overburdened communities are sometimes called “sacrifice zones,” since their health and well-being are sacrificed for the short-term benefit of a powerful few.
The danger
There are legitimate reasons for people and communities to be concerned that the next Trump Administration could target environmental justice funding. Project 2025, a report written by individuals with close ties to Trump and staff from the previous Trump administration, clearly states an intention to eliminate the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. It is important to note that the EPA’s environmental justice work started under a Republican administration in 1992 after years of advocacy. In a 2023 Trump campaign video, the incoming president asserted that he could “simply choke off the money” allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a threat not just to funds intended to protect people and our country from pollution harm, but to real people’s lives.
What’s more, supporters of the incoming administration are publishing mis– and dis-information to sway government officials and the public away from understanding that these funds matter to overburdened communities. One director of a Thriving Community Technical Assistance Center said, “To date, we have responded to over 400 requests for technical assistance from urban, rural and tribal communities seeking assistance with everything from energy efficiency goals, to cleaning up brownfields, to managing hazardous waste, to reducing indoor air pollution.” This funding is intended to support the environmental and climate work done by people who know the issues from lived experience – the communities themselves.
Thriving Communities funding is just one set of Justice40-related funding sources available across the federal government. Project 2025 has recommended eliminating Justice40 altogether.
How might Trump 2.0 try to take away EJ funds?
The first Trump administration ignored science-informed policy and evidence-based outcomes, and attempted to eliminate funding for programs they opposed on an ideological basis. For example, they tried – in what was found to be an illegal effort – to dismantle the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. Here’s a timeline of how that program was created, funded by Congress, and how the first Trump administration ignored both congressional intention and science in an attempt to eliminate the funding for it. This effort failed in the courts.
It’s worth remembering if Congress appropriates money, and a contract is signed (the money is obligated), the money cannot be rescinded. Appropriation bills require money to be withdrawn from the Treasury, and they are exclusively a power of Congress. These bills aren’t suggestions, they’re laws. Agencies are then required to apportion the funds over specific periods of time, like fiscal years, to ensure that there are no deficiencies. An agency may not spend more than the amount appropriated to it, and it may use available funds only for the purposes written by Congress in Appropriations bills.
But there are reasons to fear for the future of environmental justice funding. There are three ways these funds might be targeted:
- Reconciliation: A budget Reconciliation bill is one avenue that Congress could use to pull away already appropriated—but unspent—funding. Pursuant to the Budget Act, a reconciliation bill is confined to fiscal matters, but it’s eligible for expedited procedures in the U.S. Senate, including needing only a majority vote to pass – meaning it’s not subject to a filibuster. The President can then approve or veto the bill.
- Recission: Some presidents have requested that Congress cancel an appropriation through a process called recission. To do this, a President submits a special message to Congress that specifies the programs involved, the estimated fiscal and program effects, and the reasons for the rescission. Then it is up to Congress to consider the request, possibly introduce a Rescission bill, and vote on it.
- Impoundment: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 laid out a process the President must follow in order to delay or cancel appropriated funds. The power to withhold funds is quite limited. During Trump’s first term in office, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine while pressuring President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) later ruled that these actions violated the Impoundment Control Act.
If the Trump administration respects the intent of Congress—Congressional appropriations are federal law—they will not take these important initiatives away. However, it is likely that the incoming Congress or the President will try to pull some of them back, whether through legitimate processes or by fiat. Any delays or attempts to pull these funds away will likely trigger legal fights.
The federal budgeting process is beyond complicated, but fortunately there are many educational resources to build understanding. See, for instance, OMB Circular A-11 (guidance for the overall budget process), a primer on the overall budget process and its history, a primer on budget reconciliation, a specific analysis of IRA funding.
What we can do
We can all educate ourselves a bit on the federal budgeting process, so that we can scan the news for key words—like ‘reconciliation,’ ‘impoundment’ or ‘recission’—that might signal a possible move to cut funding to services and programs that are necessary to advance environmental justice.
We can all contact our elected officials—Senators and Representatives—stating our support for environmental justice funding to protect overburdened communities from disproportionate impacts of pollution and environmental hazards.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and other non-profits like the Environmental Data Governance Initiative are saving government data and documents, monitoring for changes, and tracking online information that may go away in the next administration. This includes environmental justice data and tools that illustrate the need for environmental justice investments. While this will be an ongoing effort, you can get started right now. You can go to this link to read more, and submit environmental justice data sets and government websites that are important to preserve for you and your community.