Washington, D.C. – October 17, 2025 – In a significant escalation of legal battles between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration, attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits seeking to halt the cancellation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Solar for All" program, a $7 billion initiative aimed at expanding solar energy access to low-income and disadvantaged communities nationwide. Media reports emerging on Friday highlighted the breadth of the coalition, with California leading the charge through dual filings, underscoring growing tensions over federal environmental funding and energy policy priorities.
The Solar for All program, launched under the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, represented a cornerstone of efforts to democratize clean energy. Funded through the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), the initiative allocated grants to 60 recipients—including states, tribes, municipalities, and nonprofits—to deploy residential solar panels, battery storage, and related infrastructure. According to EPA records, these awards were designed to benefit over 900,000 low-income households, potentially saving participants an estimated $350 million annually in energy costs while creating thousands of jobs in solar installation and manufacturing. By dedicating 100% of its funding to low-income and disadvantaged communities, the program aligned with the Justice40 Initiative, ensuring that 40% of federal climate investments reached historically marginalized areas overburdened by pollution and underinvestment.
Grants were finalized in August 2024, with recipients like the Alaska Energy Authority receiving $62 million to extend renewable energy to remote urban and rural areas, and multi-state coalitions such as Groundswell, Inc., securing $156 million to serve Southern communities. The program emphasized equitable deployment, including technical assistance for workforce training, customer outreach, and "enabling upgrades" like energy efficiency retrofits and structural repairs to make solar viable in aging housing stock. In states like Michigan, funds were earmarked for brownfield revitalization, transforming contaminated sites into solar hubs to boost local economies and reduce emissions.
However, the program's trajectory shifted dramatically following President Donald Trump's return to office in January 2025. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, a former New York congressman and Army Reserve lieutenant colonel confirmed by the Senate on January 29, announced its termination on August 7, 2025. In a video statement posted to the EPA's YouTube channel and shared on X (formerly Twitter), Zeldin described Solar for All as a "boondoggle" and "grift," citing concerns over self-dealing, unqualified recipients, and inadequate oversight raised by the EPA's Inspector General. Zeldin argued that the move aligned with congressional intent under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed by Trump on July 4, 2025, which repealed the EPA's authority to administer GGRF programs and rescinded unobligated funds.
The OBBBA, a sweeping 870-page reconciliation package passed via budget reconciliation to bypass filibuster threats, encapsulated Trump's second-term domestic agenda. Dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" by the White House, it permanently extended the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions set to expire at year's end, added new deductions like no tax on overtime pay, and boosted spending on border security ($175 billion), defense ($150 billion), and fossil fuel production. Critics, including the Congressional Budget Office, projected it would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt over a decade, with $4.46 trillion in lost tax revenue partially offset by cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP. Among its environmental provisions, the bill terminated clean energy incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act, including those for electric vehicles and energy efficiency, while promoting "drill baby drill" policies to expand oil, gas, and coal extraction on federal lands.
This termination has reverberated across the states, prompting a swift legal response. On Thursday, October 16, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the coalition's actions during an online press call, framing them as a defense against an administration "trying to hold us in the past, tethered to fossil fuel companies." The first lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., alleges breach of contract, arguing that funds were already obligated by Congress before the OBBBA's enactment on July 3, 2025. It seeks monetary damages to compensate recipients for lost investments and preparatory work.
The second suit, lodged Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, is led by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, and Arizona's Kris Mayes. It accuses the EPA of violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers by unilaterally rescinding congressionally appropriated funds without evidence of fraud or waste. The plaintiffs contend that the termination ignores the Impoundment Control Act, which requires presidential notification to Congress for fund withholdings—a step not taken here.
Joining California, Arizona, Washington, and Minnesota are attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia. Additional stakeholders include Kentucky's governor, Pennsylvania's Energy Development Authority chair, and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. This marks the 43rd and 44th lawsuits California alone has filed against the Trump administration this year, part of over two dozen actions by Democratic attorneys general on issues from immigration to grant suspensions.
The stakes are profoundly local. Arizona, for instance, stood to receive $156 million, enough to equip 11,000 homes with solar systems and avert a projected 20% spike in energy bills for low-income families. Mayes warned that without the program, "clean energy will be out of reach" for many Arizonans, particularly marginalized groups like the Hopi Tribe in northern Arizona, which anticipated $25 million to electrify hundreds of off-grid homes. California's $250 million allocation could have expanded community solar in underserved urban neighborhoods, reducing reliance on fossil fuel-dependent grids prone to blackouts.
In Illinois, Attorney General Kwame Raoul emphasized the program's role in addressing energy burdens in Chicago's South Side, where low-income households spend up to 10% of income on utilities. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser highlighted $156 million in lost funds for brownfield solar projects in Denver, arguing the cancellation undermines state efforts to meet emissions targets. Maryland's suit points to risks for rural communities, where solar could offset rising costs from coal plant retirements.
These actions echo earlier challenges: Nonprofits like the Climate United Fund sued in March over a related $20 billion GGRF freeze, while Harris County, Texas, filed last week for its award. Over two dozen Democratic senators penned a letter to Zeldin this week urging restoration, citing bipartisan state recipients. Even some Republicans, including senators from red states with grants, quietly lobbied for reconsideration.
The broader context reveals a stark policy pivot. Under Zeldin's "Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative," launched February 4, 2025, the EPA has prioritized deregulation, slashing its budget by 65%, eliminating scientific research arms, and fast-tracking fossil fuel permits. This includes canceling near-complete renewable projects and blocking methane rules, aligning with Trump's long-standing skepticism of climate science—he once labeled global warming a "Chinese hoax." Fossil fuels, which contribute 75% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate warming, per IPCC reports, while renewables like solar could cut dependence and create 3.5 million jobs by 2030, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Proponents of the lawsuits argue the termination not only breaches legal obligations but exacerbates inequities. In the Southeast, Groundswell's program promised 20 years of 50% bill reductions for thousands of households, including those in mobile home parks hit hardest by hurricanes. Tribes like the Hopi face perpetuated energy poverty, with 40% of Navajo Nation homes unelectrified pre-program. Economically, the cuts forfeit $1.5 billion in private investment leveraged by GGRF grants, per NRDC estimates.
The White House has dismissed the suits as partisan obstruction, with spokesman Karoline Leavitt stating Friday that "President Trump's agenda unleashes American energy dominance, not green scams that enrich elites." Zeldin echoed this in congressional testimony, vowing to redirect savings toward "real environmental stewardship" via conservation, not subsidies.
Legal experts predict prolonged litigation, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, given precedents like the 2024 impoundment cases. Outcomes could reshape federal spending authority, with implications for future climate aid. As hearings loom, the suits symbolize a deepening divide: one side championing equity and sustainability, the other unyielding economic nationalism.
For low-income families in Phoenix or Baltimore, the fight is immediate—solar promised relief from bills averaging $200 monthly, now at risk. As Bonta put it, "This isn't just about panels; it's about powering futures untethered from the past." With winter approaching, the courts' swift resolution could determine whether thousands shiver in the dark or bask in clean, affordable light.
