Latest news with #SolarForAll
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Social Security is the latest front in Trump and Musk's attack on trust in government
Standing next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, Elon Musk conjured an image of a Social Security system riddled with fraud that was as vivid as it was make-believe. For example, Musk said that large numbers of 150-year-olds are receiving Social Security benefits. But, as Wired noted, when recipients' birth dates are default or incomplete, the programming language that Social Security's benefits system was written in defaults to 1875. What Musk came across was a programming quirk, not fraud. But since Musk is now one of the key nodes of the right's ever-mightier misinformation machine, his falsehood was quickly spread to untold millions as more (fake) evidence that the federal government is a mess. And it gets worse: The Social Security Administration's top official, Michelle King, a civil servant with decades of experience, resigned in protest after a confrontation in which she refused to give the so-called Department of Government Efficiency access to the incredibly sensitive information about every American stored in Social Security's databases. It's not clear whether DOGE now has that access, or what they would do with it. And if that makes you deeply uneasy, know that that anxiety is perfectly fine with the Trump administration. In the 1960s, as much as three-quarters of the public told pollsters they trusted the government to do what is right either most of the time or always; today that number sits in the low 20s. The reasons for the decline are complex, but Trump has always both exploited and encouraged distrust in government; the fact that it is so widespread is a key reason he is president right now. Yet if electing Trump is a symptom of distrust toward the government, the early days of his administration indicate he will give Americans even more reason to believe that the government can't solve problems, doesn't keep its promises, and never deserves the benefit of the doubt. Among the victims of this alternately haphazard and malevolent approach is a group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Farmers who signed contracts with the government to begin conservation and renewable energy projects on their land, that obligated the government to reimburse them for the cost of those projects, have seen the funds frozen. That leaves them holding the bag for loans they took out and money they invested on the assumption that the government would keep its end of the agreement. One farmer told The New York Times he would 'never do anything with any government agency ever again.' This story is playing out with various government programs across the country. Small nonprofits that receive federal funds to provide services like Head Start or rides for the elderly to dialysis treatment have had to lay off workers or shut down entirely because of the funding freeze. The Solar For All program had signed contracts worth $7 billion with states, localities and nonprofits to set up community solar projects; the Trump administration froze the funds and left many projects in limbo. Last week, the administration essentially shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, leaving consumers more vulnerable to financial scams. And the White House plans to lay off thousands of IRS workers, which will likely reverse the progress the agency had recently made in improving customer service. These are just a few of the actions the administration has taken, but the result will be the same: a government that gives people poorer service, can't be trusted to keep its word, and isn't there when we need it. In the future, how many people will want to enter into contracts with the government like the ones those farmers did? How many talented and idealistic young people will choose to go into public service after watching thousands of civil servants summarily fired? This is a tragic irony of the destruction currently in progress: A genuine, good-faith effort to improve government efficiency could save money, help Americans by improving the delivery of services and boost people's faith in government. It would be an extremely worthwhile undertaking; there is plenty of room for improvement in how the federal government operates. This administration, however, is not operating in good faith, and it seems determined to give people more reasons to believe that government can't do anything right. Many conservatives dislike government for ideological reasons; whether it does its job well or poorly, they'll still say they don't trust it. But there are millions of Americans who judge government based on what they've heard and what they've experienced. Long after Trump and Musk are done slashing and burning their way through Washington, their suspicions will remain. That means the next Democratic president and Congress will have an enormous challenge when they try to make the case that government can be an ally rather than an impediment. Not only will they face the practical task of rebuilding what Trump and Musk have destroyed, they'll have to rebuild trust as well — and that could be even harder. This article was originally published on
Boston Globe
07-02-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Markey: Federal freeze on $316M for Mass. climate efforts is ‘illegal'
The frozen dollars include $35 million committed to the City of Boston for electric school buses, Markey said. Advertisement Trump, in his first day in office, issued an executive order that directed agencies to halt funding related to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, two major spending packages passed under former President Biden. The legislation allocated billions of dollars across the United States for renewable energy, pollution cleanups, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, public transportation, and more. Federal judges swiftly blocked a memo from the administration's Office of Management and Budget to enact Trump's executive orders directing a funding freeze. However, One key program to build solar panels on public housing, called 'Solar For All,' promised $156 million to Massachusetts. Markey said Friday that the program is still frozen. He fears the Trump administration will attempt to block such congressionally-appropriated funds from going out the door in order to pay for tax cuts, a major legislative priority for the new administration. 'It's a very simple plot: Steal and loot the money out of environmental programs … in order to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country,' Markey said. One locally impacted group, Health Resources in Action, was selected, along with two other partner organizations, to help distribute $48 million in Advertisement The funds are intended to benefit historically underserved communities. Now, it's unclear when the partnership, called 'Right now, we cannot access those funds,' said Kathleen McCabe, managing director of policy and practice at Health Resources in Action, during the press conference. The partnership was on 'the brink' of She added that projects across the region, including to prepare Vermont for flood disasters and improve transportation in Western Massachusetts, are 'poised and ready' for work. Erin Douglas can be reached at
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trumps funding pause clouds future of Solar For All Program
Terry L. Jones Floodlight The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's $7 billion Solar For All Program faces an uncertain fate following last week's rollout of executive orders from President Donald Trump putting a freeze on federal financial assistance. That news came a month after EPA officials from the previous administration told Floodlight that awards tied to the program had already been obligated to nonprofit groups and states and would start trickling down to low-income property owners at the beginning of this year. But that's not how it's rolling out for Solar for All, which is designed to offer solar power to households in low-income and disadvantaged communities through grants and loans to help ease annual utility costs and meet climate goals. Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy for the Solar Energy Industries Association, confirmed news reports that Solar for All grant recipients received notice from the federal Office of Management and Budget that funding was put on pause with no indication when or if they might receive it. One Solar for All grant recipient set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars confirmed the funding portal to request reimbursement was shut down. Participants in the program — part of then-President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — are now scrambling to figure out how to access the money approved by Congress before Trump took office. Officials with GRID Alternatives — a nonprofit awarded $357 million to add solar panels on homes in 29 states plus Native American households in five states — said the group received form emails announcing the pause of funding for Solar For All. The emails came from federal agencies but not the EPA, which administers the program, Wanda Heard, senior public relations and advocacy manager for GRID Alternatives, said in a prepared statement. 'We understand that all awardees' ability to draw funds has been 'suspended,' but direct communication has been limited,' Heard wrote. Heard said her organization is worried about not being reimbursed by the EPA 'promptly' or 'at all,' making it hesitant to begin any solar projects. One of Trump's executive orders, Unleashing American Energy, orders federal agencies to halt climate-related funding under the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — which Trump labels as the 'Green New Deal' — while officials analyze whether they conflict with the president's order to maximize U.S. fossil fuel development. Last week, his administration released an Office of Management and Budget memo directing agencies to halt all 'financial assistance' from the federal government, except assistance to individuals. Some states and nonprofits responded quickly by suing the Trump administration over the pause. And a federal district court judge issued an administrative stay the day after the freeze memo. OMB withdrew the memo, but the White House said the funding freeze would remain in place. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan extended her order as nonprofits argued the freeze is illegal and unconstitutional, and the halt in funding could force them to shut down while the case is being litigated. A second judge in Rhode Island made a similar ruling in a separate case in which 22 attorney generals from Democratic states sued over the freeze. Both claim the administration is violating the Administrative Procedure Act. It's unclear what that means for Solar for All, Gallagher said, adding, 'We are working to learn more about when or if disbursements will resume.' Similar sentiments were shared by state leaders in New Mexico. 'The governor and her cabinet secretaries are thoroughly reviewing these orders and their implications for our state,' Michael Coleman, spokesperson for New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in an email. 'Our initial assessment indicates serious constitutional concerns that require immediate attention.' In December, when Floodlight spoke to officials with New Mexico's Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, they said Trump's previous threats to repeal IRA funds would likely lead to the state canceling their plans. At the time, they said they weren't 'overly concerned' that would happen. New Mexico is set to receive $156 million to deploy rooftop solar systems on single-family homes and apartment buildings and help local utility companies integrate solar power into the state's electric grid. 'The governor understands that these developments may cause uncertainty and anxiety,' Coleman said. 'She wants New Mexicans to know that she is committed to advocating for them and protecting their interests.' Legal experts argue grantees should ultimately win their battle to retain the federal funding that has been promised to them, citing court precedent set under Trump's first term. Romany Webb, deputy director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and her colleague Amy Turner, director of the the center's Cities Climate Law Initiative, said in a blog that recipients of federal grants tied to the climate and infrastructure initiatives should move forward with fulfilling any federally mandated obligations for their respective programs and maintain comprehensive records to use in potential legal arguments. 'Federal agencies have contractually obligated about 84% of climate funding under the Inflation Reduction Act, which means they are required to disburse the funds as set out in the relevant agreements,' the pair wrote. They referenced two 2018 decisions during Trump's first term when federal courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland struck down attempts to cancel grants appropriated by Congress based on Trump's desire to halt the spending. Writing in the D.C. case, then-U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson found that a 'federal agency that changes course abruptly without a well-reasoned explanation for its decision or that acts contrary to its own regulations is subject to having a federal court vacate its action as 'arbitrary (and) capricious.' ' Jackson is now a U.S. Supreme Court justice. In both cases, the courts found those cancellations violated the Administrative Procedure Act — the same federal law at issue in the current litigation. 'There is still much uncertainty, and many potential challenges ahead,' Webb and Turner wrote. 'Perhaps the only sure thing is that the halting of federal financial assistance programs, even temporarily, will have significant implications for climate work at the national, state and community levels.' Mario Alejandro Ariza contributed to this report. Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.
