Comer probes NGOs that received $20B in Biden EPA grants despite almost no revenue: 'Shady deal'
Comer, R-Ky., called on eight nongovernmental organizations who received the grants to offer the committee all information related to the grants and their staff and salaries.
The $20 billion came out of two initiatives launched under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that aimed to offer grants to nonprofits, community development banks and other groups for projects focusing on disadvantaged communities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin moved to terminate the programs earlier this month, but that decision is now held up in court.
"The Biden EPA tried to dodge any oversight by striking a shady deal with a financial institution to cover up its corrupt self-dealing that rewarded political cronies pushing a far-left environmental agenda," Comer said in a statement. "The radical environmental groups profiting from Biden's Green New Deal must be held accountable for their misuse of taxpayer-funded grants and provide information for our investigation."
Trump Epa Chief To 'Confront Crisis' Of Mexican Sewage Polluting San Diego Area Beaches
Republicans claim the $20 billion was "parked at an outside financial institution" to avoid oversight. As part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) program, eight groups were awarded funds from the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund and the $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator.
Read On The Fox News App
Eight letters went out to: Climate United, Coalition for Green Capital, Power Forward Communities, Opportunity Finance Network, Inclusiv, Justice Climate Fund, Appalachian Community Capital and Native CDFI Network.
Climate United told Fox News Digital: "We have always been committed to transparency in our work and will comply with this request to provide information that is readily available to the EPA. Climate United looks forward to helping Congress and Americans better understand how our work reduces energy costs, creates jobs, and boosts demand for U.S. manufacturing."
Fox News Digital has not yet received a reply for comment on Comer's letters from the other seven companies.
Included in the funds was a $2 billion grant to Power Forward Communities, a group linked to former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams that aims to "reduce our impact on the climate" by funding the replacement of household appliances in lower-income communities with green alternatives.
Zeldin told Fox News that in 2023, Power Forward Communities reported just $100 in revenue, but was later granted $2 billion by the Biden-era EPA in 2024.
"On page one of the grant agreement, it tells them that they have 21 days to distribute all $2 billion. On page seven of the grant agreement, it gives them 90 days to complete a training called 'How to Develop a Budget.' I would say that any entity that needs training on how to develop a budget shouldn't be actually distributing money before they take that training, and they certainly shouldn't be receiving $2 billion to be distributed that rapidly," he continued.
Zeldin also noted the EPA found a potential "conflict of interest" payment of $5 billion to the former director of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under Biden.
"All this money was put up front," Zeldin said. "It was 'here is $20 billion.' And it was going to their friends on the left."
The acting inspector general of the EPA is now investigating the GGRF for financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest and oversight failures.
The Oversight Committee launched its probe in February and requested a briefing from Zeldin on the matter earlier this month. The FBI is also investigating possible criminal violations.
Fox News' Landon Mion contributed to this report. Original article source: Comer probes NGOs that received $20B in Biden EPA grants despite almost no revenue: 'Shady deal'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Appeals court allows Trump to cut $2 billion in foreign aid
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can withhold some $2 billion in foreign aid payments, overturning a lower-court order that had blocked the administration's plans to slash disbursements from the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifted Biden-appointed District Judge Amir Ali's temporary restraining order, which forced USAID to continue making billions of dollars in foreign assistance payments for work already done by organizations the agency contracted with. Ali issued the restraining order in February in response to a lawsuit filed by two nonprofit organizations, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, after Trump ordered a 90-day pause on foreign aid funding on his first day in office. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks to the press about deploying federal law enforcement agents in Washington to bolster the local police presence, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House, in Washington, DC, on Aug. 11, 2025. REUTERS Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, noted in the majority opinion Wednesday that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against the Trump administration's funding freeze. 'The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,' Henderson wrote. Advertisement The nonprofits had argued that the president exceeded his authority by virtually abolishing USAID and cutting congressionally approved spending. Henderson, joined in the majority by Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, ruled that under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, only the Government Accountability Office – a congressional watchdog agency – had standing to challenge the president's order to withhold foreign aid. Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, slammed the funding freeze as 'unlawful' and warned it could lead to 'tyranny' in her dissenting opinion. 3 A federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared President Trump to withhold $2 billion in foreign aid, reversing a lower court's block on his plan to cut USAID disbursements. REUTERS Advertisement Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'The court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny – the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,' Pan wrote. A White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson hailed the ruling, telling Reuters it would halt 'radical left dark money groups' from 'maliciously interfering with the president's ability to spend responsibly and to administer foreign aid in a lawful manner in alignment with his America First policies.' The Trump administration had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to lift Ali's restraining order, but in a 5-4 ruling, the high court rejected the bid. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks during a visit to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, on Aug. 13, 2025. REUTERS In February, the State Department outlined plans to eliminate roughly $60 billion in foreign aid spending and terminate 92% of grants issued by USAID. The figures were included in a State Department memo detailing the results of a foreign aid audit ordered by Trump. The audit identified nearly 15,000 grants and targeted almost 10,000 for elimination — the majority of which were issued by USAID. USAID was one of the first federal agencies that Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk, targeted for massive cuts based on allegations of widespread waste, fraud and abuse within the agency. In July, Congress approved a White House recession request that clawed back about $8 billion earmarked for USAID.
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
DC Mayor Bowser walks delicate line with Trump, reflecting the city's precarious position
NEW YORK (AP) — As National Guard troops deploy across her city as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to clamp down on crime, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is responding with relative restraint. She's called Trump's takeover of the city's police department and his decision to activate 800 members of the guard ' unsettling and unprecedented ' and gone as far as to cast his efforts as part of an 'authoritarian push.' But Bowser has so far avoided the kind of biting rhetoric and personal attacks typical of other high-profile Democratic leaders, despite the unprecedented incursion into her city. 'While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised,' Bowser told reporters at a press conference responding to the efforts. She even suggested the surge in resources might benefit the city and noted that limited home rule allows the federal government 'to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.' 'My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the District," said Bowser, who is in her third term as mayor. "And what's important for the District is that we can take care of our citizens.' The approach underscores the reality of Washington, D.C.'s precarious position under the thumb of the federal government. Trump has repeatedly threatened an outright takeover of the overwhelmingly Democratic city, which is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 that could be repealed by Congress. Republicans, who control both chambers, have already frozen more than a $1 billion in local spending, slashing the city's budget. That puts her in a very different position than figures like California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. B Pritzker, Democrats whose states depend on the federal government for disaster relief and other funding, but who have nonetheless relentlessly attacked the current administration as they lay the groundwork for potential 2028 presidential runs. Those efforts come amid deep frustrations from Democratic voters that their party has not been nearly aggressive enough in its efforts to counter Trump's actions. 'Unfortunately she is in a very vulnerable position,' said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. 'This is the sort of thing that can happen when you don't have the powers that come with being a state. So that's what we're seeing right now, the mayor trying to navigate a very tough administration. Because this administration has shown no restraint when it comes to any kind of constitutional barriers or norms." A change from Trump's first term Bowser's approach marks a departure from Trump's first term, when she was far more antagonistic toward the president. Then she routinely clashed with the administration, including having city workers paint giant yellow letters spelling out 'Black Lives Matter' on a street near the White House during the George Floyd protests in 2020. This time around, Bowser took a different tact from the start. She flew to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he won the election and has worked to avoid conflict and downplay points of contention, including tearing up the 'Black Lives Matter' letters after he returned to Washington in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress. The change reflects the new political dynamics at play, with Republicans in control of Congress and an emboldened Trump who has made clear he is willing to exert maximum power and push boundaries in unprecedented ways. D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson said she understands Bowser's position, and largely agrees with her conclusion that a legal challenge to Trump's moves would be a long shot. Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in his executive order, declaring a 'crime emergency' so his administration could take over the city's police force. The statue limits that control to 30 days unless he gets approval from Congress. 'The challenge would be on the question of 'Is this actually an emergency?'' said Henderson, a former congressional staffer. 'That's really the only part you could challenge.' Henderson believes the city would face dim prospects in a court fight, but thinks the D.C. government should challenge anyway, 'just on the basis of precedent.' Trump told reporters Wednesday that he believes he can extend the 30-day deadline by declaring a national emergency, but said "we expect to be before Congress very quickly.' 'We're gonna be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days," he said. 'We're gonna do this very quickly. But we're gonna want extensions. I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.' Limited legal options Bowser's response is a reflection of the reality of the situation, according to a person familiar with her thinking. As mayor of the District of Columbia, Bowser has a very different relationship with the president and federal government than other mayors or governors. The city is home to thousands of federal workers, and the mass layoffs under DOGE have already had a major impact on the city's economy. Her strategy has been to focus on finding areas where she and the new administration can work together on shared priorities. For now, Bowser appears set to stick with her approach, saying Wednesday that she is focused on 'making sure the federal surge is useful to us.' During a morning interview with Fox 5, she and the city's police chief argued an influx of federal agents linked to Trump's takeover would improve public safety, with more officers on patrol. Police chief Pamela Smith said the city's police department is short almost 800 officers, so the extra police presence 'is clearly going to impact us in a positive way.' But Nina Smith, the Democratic strategist, said she believes Bowser needs a course correction. 'How many times is it going to take before she realizes this is not someone who has got the best interests of the city at heart?" she asked. 'I think there may need to be time for her to get tough and push back.' Despite Trump's rhetoric, statistics published by Washington's Metropolitan Police show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, reaching its lowest rate in 30 years.
UPI
42 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump revokes Biden antitrust EO targeting monopolies
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order revoking a Biden-era antitrust initiative. Photo by Will Oliver/UPI | License Photo Aug. 14 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Wednesday rescinded a signature Joe Biden-era initiative aimed at promoting competition in the U.S. economy and curbing monopolies, especially in the technology industry. Trump revoked Biden's Executive Order 14036 with an executive order of his own. The far-ranging EO 14036 was signed by Biden in July 2021 to bolster antitrust enforcement to "promote the interests of American workers, businesses and consumers" and protect them from economic consolidation. Trump offered no reason for the revocation, though the Justice Department celebrated the move, saying it will use this as an opportunity to "recalibrate and modernize" its approach to competition policy. "America First Antitrust focuses on empowering the American people in the free markets, not enabling regulators and bureaucrats to prescribe outcomes," Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division said in a statement. "We are unleashing the new American Golden Age through antitrust enforcement that removes barriers to innovation and opportunity and limits regulatory burdens on free competition." The Justice Department also criticized the Biden initiative as "overly prescriptive and burdensome," and said that the Trump administration is focused on crafting executive orders that are "tailored" and call for lowering drug prices and reducing regulatory barriers.
