EPA Administrator Zeldin speaks with reporters on Long Island, NY.
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration promised to combat toxic “forever chemicals,” while conversely canceling nearly 800 grants aimed at addressing environmental injustices, including in communities plagued with PFAS contamination.
In a court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed for the first time that it intends to cancel 781 environmental justice grants, nearly double what had previously been disclosed.
Environmental justice advocates say the EPA’s pledge to combat PFAS rings hollow as it simultaneously slashes its budget, shutters key offices, and cancels hundreds of grants aimed at addressing pollution in low-income and vulnerable communities.
“I think it’s ironic that [the EPA] is positioning itself as justly enforcing its mission of protecting human health and the environment when they’re doing the antithesis of that,” said Amanda Cronin, a staffer in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Environmental justice is truly about uplifting individuals, organizations and communities that experience environmental threats and disasters aggravated by the climate crisis.”
Cronin is one of roughly 450 EPA officials who were fired or reassigned by the Trump administration for working on environmental justice issues or diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“By cutting our office, they are directly harming their own voters,” she said. “Many people who voted for him and who support Republican members of Congress live in environmental justice communities and were either currently benefiting from or were about to benefit from the unprecedented grants our office provided.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Despite this, the agency outlined a series of actions to combat per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are synthetic chemicals used in everything from non-stick cookware to water-resistant clothing. These toxic chemicals have been linked to cancer and other serious health issues. PFAS have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans.
“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement.
The plan includes enhanced scientific testing, holding polluters financially accountable, and appointing a new official to oversee these PFAS efforts. However, the announcement lacked key details such as enforcement mechanisms or a timeline, adding to environmental advocates’ skepticism.
“I'm worried that it's a lot of talk without a lot of action,” said Corinne Bell, a senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council. “I’d like to hear about how they plan on funding the plan they've released. What resources are they going to put behind creating additional science and testing methods? How will they ensure that drinking water plants have the money they need to install filtration?”
The same court filing that disclosed the number of canceled grants also noted that 377 grantees had already received termination notices.
“The EPA has already sent out formal notices to approximately 377 grantees,” Daniel Coogan, EPA deputy assistant administrator for infrastructure and extramural resources, said in the filing. “For the remaining approximately 404 grantees, EPA plans to issue notices within the next two weeks.”
The canceled grants were originally awarded under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act through the EPA’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program. The program aimed to fund community-driven projects tackling pollution and health disparities. Many of these grants could help the communities dealing with the legacy pollution that Zeldin promised to help.
The cuts are part of a broader effort by the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to eliminate what it calls ideologically driven federal spending.
Adding to advocates’ concerns about the Trump administration’s PFAS initiative: the administration has not committed to defending a major Biden-era PFAS drinking water regulation in court. Finalized in April 2024, the rule set enforceable limits on six PFAS compounds. Utility companies sued to block the rule, arguing they shouldn’t bear the financial burden of cleanup.
Court records show the EPA twice requested delays in the case while the administration decides whether to defend the rule.
“New EPA leadership is in the process of reviewing the PFAS drinking water rule and the issues presented in the litigation in the current case around it, and developing its position on how to proceed,” said the EPA press office in an email to Medill News Service.
Finya Swai is an energy and environment reporter for Medill News Service, covering Capitol Hill and the White House. She is also a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
New clean energy manufacturing plants, including for EV batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, are being built across states like Michigan, Georgia, and Ohio.
In recent years, Michigan has been aggressive in its approach to clean energy: It’s invested millions of dollars in renewable energy infrastructure, created training programs for jobs in the electric vehicle industry, and set a goal of moving the state to 100% carbon neutrality by 2050.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials aim to make the Great Lakes State a leader in clean energy manufacturing by bringing jobs and investments to local communities while also tackling pollution, which continues to wreak havoc on the environment.
Now Michigan’s clean energy efforts have seemingly hit a wall of uncertainty as President Donald Trump’s administration takes ongoing actions to roll back federal climate regulations.
“We’ve seen nothing less than an unprecedented, all-out assault on our environment and our democracy,” said Bentley Johnson, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters’ federal government affairs director.
The clean energy sector has grown rapidly in the United States since President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Congress appropriated $370 billion under the IRA, and White House officials at the time touted it as the country’s largest investment in clean energy.
According to Climate Power, a national public relations and advocacy organization dedicated to climate justice, Michigan was the No. 1 state in the nation in 2024 in its number of clean energy projects; from 2022-2024, the state announced 74 projects totalling over 26,000 jobs and roughly $27 billion in federal funding.
Trump has long been critical of the country’s climate initiatives and development of clean energy technology. He’s previously made false claims that climate change is a hoax and wind turbines cause cancer. Since taking office again in January, Trump has tried to pause IRA funding and signed an executive order to boost coal production.
Additionally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in March that the agency had canceled more than 400 environmental justice grants to be used to improve air and water quality in disadvantaged communities. Senate Democrats, who released a full list of the canceled grants, accused the EPA of illegally terminating the contracts, through which funds were appropriated by Congress under the IRA. Of those 400 grants, 15 were allocated for projects in Michigan, including one to restore housing units in Kalamazoo and another to transform Detroit area food pantries and soup kitchens into emergency shelters for those in need.
Johnson said the federal government reversing course on the allotted funding has left community groups who were set to receive it in the lurch.
“That just seems wrong, to take away these public benefits that there was already an agreement — Congress has already appropriated or committed to spending this, to handing this money out, and the rug is being pulled out from under them,” Johnson said.
Climate Power has tracked clean energy projects across the country totaling $56.3 billion in projected funding and over 50,000 potential jobs that have been stalled or canceled since Trump was elected in November. Michigan accounts for seven of those projects, including Nel Hydrogen’s plans to build an electrolyzer manufacturing facility in Plymouth.
Nel Hydrogen announced an indefinite delay in the construction of its Plymouth factory in February 2025. Wilhelm Flinder, the company’s head of investor relations, communications, and marketing, cited uncertainty regarding the IRA’s tax credits for clean hydrogen production as a factor in the company’s decision, according to reporting by Hometownlife.com. The facility was expected to invest $400 million in the local community and to create over 500 people when it started production.
“America is losing nearly a thousand jobs a day because of Trump’s war against cheaper, faster, and cleaner energy. Congressional Republicans have a choice: get in line with Trump’s job-killing energy agenda or take a stand to protect jobs and lower costs for American families,” Climate Power executive director Lori Lodes said in a March statement.
Opposition groups make misleading claims about the benefits of renewable energy, such as the reliability of wind or solar energy and the land used for clean energy projects, in order to stir up public distrust, Johnson said.
In support of its clean energy goals, the state fronted some of its own taxpayer dollars for several projects to complement the federal IRA money. Johnson said the strategy was initially successful, but with sudden shifts in federal policies, it’s potentially become a risk, because the state would be unable to foot the bill entirely on its own.
The state still has its self-imposed clean energy goals to reach in 25 years, but whether it will meet that deadline is hard to predict, Johnson said. Michigan’s clean energy laws are still in place and, despite Trump’s efforts, the IRA remains intact for now.
“Thanks to the combination — I like to call it a one-two punch of the state-passed Clean Energy and Jobs Act … and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the two of those intact — as long as we don’t weaken it — and then the combination of the private sector and technological advancement, we can absolutely still make it,” Johnson said. “It is still going to be tough, even if there wasn’t a single rollback.”
Policy Changes Could Derail Michigan’s Clean Energy Goals was published by the Public News Service and is shared with permission.
This story was reported by Alyssa Burr for the Michigan Independent.
Broken speech bubbles.
In a disappointing turn of events, Connecticut has chosen to follow the precedent set by President Donald Trump’s English-Only Executive Order, effectively disregarding the federal mandates of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
By failing to rectify its longstanding systemic indifference to non-native English speakers, the state has dismissed the opportunity to provide critical information to English language learners, sign language users, and those who rely on plain language for comprehension.
At the heart of this issue was Senate Bill 955, a bill I authored and proposed which was introduced in the 2025 legislative session by Sen. MD Rahman. The bill sought to establish policies ensuring that individuals with limited English proficiency could access information and public services through translation and interpretation resources. It was a necessary step toward creating an Office of Language Access, a centralized entity that would oversee and coordinate language accessibility efforts statewide.
However, despite its potential to serve over 400,000 residents whose primary language is not English, the bill failed to make it out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.
The failure of SB 955 is more than just a legislative setback; it is a denial of fundamental rights. Language access is not a privilege—it is a necessity for equitable participation in civic life. Without it, thousands of Connecticut residents, throughout their lifespan, are left without the ability to engage with government services, healthcare providers, legal systems, and educational institutions in a meaningful way.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This decision reflects a troubling trend of information privilege and linguistic exclusion, reinforcing barriers for non-English speakers and sign language users. It is a stark contrast to the principles of inclusivity and equal opportunity that Connecticut claims to uphold. The absence of a dedicated Office of Language Access means that residents will continue to face fragmented and inconsistent language services, further marginalizing communities that already struggle to navigate bureaucratic systems.
For years, advocates have fought to correct this injustice, working tirelessly to ensure that Connecticut recognizes the rights of ALL residents, regardless of their linguistic background. The failure to pass SB 955 is not just a rejection of a bill—it is a rejection of the people it was meant to serve.
As Connecticut moves forward, it must reconsider its stance on language access. The state cannot afford to ignore the voices of those who have been systematically excluded. The fight for equitable information and language access is far from over, and it is imperative that lawmakers revisit this issue with the urgency and commitment it deserves.
The question remains: Will Connecticut continue to turn its back on its diverse communities, or will it finally take action to ensure that language access is no longer a barrier to essential services? The answer will define the state’s commitment to civil rights for years to come.
A Missed Opportunity was originally published by the CT Mirror and Is shared with permission.
Doris Maldonado Mendez is a member of the Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board.
White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The DOGE is not the first effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is the first to receive such vociferous disdain along what appears to be purely political lines. Most presidents have made efforts in these areas, some more substantial than others, with limited success. Here are some modern examples.
In 1982, President Reagan used an executive order to establish a private sector task force to identify inefficiencies in government spending (commonly called the Grace Commission). The final report included 2,478 recommendations to reduce wasteful government practices, estimated savings of $429 billion over the first three years and $6.8 trillion between 1985 and 2000. Most of the savings required legislative changes, and Congress ignored most of those proposals.
In 1993, President Clinton launched the National Performance Review, with Vice President Al Gore in charge, intending to “make the entire federal government less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment." Their initial report identified $108 billion in potential savings, much of which required legislation and was never implemented. However, there were purely administrative suggestions as well, many of which were implemented. Al Gore indicated that 24,000 federal jobs had been reduced through the National Performance Review, mainly through buyouts, a bit more than 1% of the workforce at that time.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In 2005, President George W. Bush proposed a savings package that included $2.3 billion in rescissions—essentially canceling unused balances from 55 federal programs, as part of a strategy to rebuild critical infrastructure in the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. Congress did not approve his proposal.
In 2011, President Obama launched theCampaign to Cut Waste, which aimed to eliminate misspent tax dollars across federal agencies. This included measures like consolidating federal websites and creating an oversight board to track spending. This effort was established by executive order, and Vice President Biden took an important role.
All modern presidents have made at least minimal efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, though the Trump/DOGE effort has been unusual. Consider the following three examples.
First, the effort is broader and deeper than any prior effort. Many billions of dollars, American taxpayer dollars, are wasted by government agencies and paid fraudulently. Is addressing this in depth and breadth a bad thing? Should they just pick around the edges, find a few billion dollars, and go home?
Second, instead of studying the problems for months or years and then proposing legislation, a duly elected President instructed appointed members of his administration to aggressively identify and implement specific changes that were thought to be within his executive authority. He took an expansive view of his powers, and not surprisingly, there have been legal challenges.
Third, various sources suggest that between 70,000 and 150,000 federal employees have been laid off through DOGE and other administration efforts. There are plans for more. Perhaps the final number will reach 10% of the federal workforce (excluding the military and the post office). These cuts may seem extreme, but in the private sector, a restructuring that results in a 10-15% reduction in a company’s workforce is not all that unusual. Yes, there will be some hiccups in government services, but federal jobs are not sacrosanct.
We should not be surprised that the public perception of the DOGE effort is extreme, fully reflecting the current nature of our modern and highly partisan politics.
Politicians and pundits on the left are appalled by the effort. They argue that such cuts will decimate vital government services and have been handled in a cold and insensitive manner. There are claims that these efforts are unconstitutional despite the President’s Constitutional role in managing the federal government workforce (subject, of course, to civil service and related laws and regulations), managing the bureaucracy in general, and minimizing waste and fraud. Given that the full spectrum of the political left (traditional Democrats, Progressives, and a small but vocal group of Socialists) believes in a strong federal government to address societal challenges, some resistance on that basis is to be expected. However, their visceral and intrinsic rejection of all things Trump makes it appear they are either against the elimination of waste and fraud or believe it does not exist. And is it wrong to wonder if those who complain the loudest have somehow been the biggest beneficiaries of a broken system?
Politicians and pundits on the right have mostly been supportive and argue that these reductions in programs and the workforce are but a small part of the necessary reduction in government spending. However, newly approved cabinet secretaries pushed back on DOGE’s authority to implement such cuts directly. In early March, the President told his cabinet secretaries they were in charge of the actual cuts, not DOGE.
Most on the right (traditional and conservative Republicans, RINOs, and especially those of the MAGA persuasion) are supportive of the idea. Nearly one hundred days in, they may be a bit disappointed that the results seem more talk than action. They see Republicans in Congress and the administration negotiating on a “big, beautiful bill” that so far does not reflect much in the way of government reductions. Some are also wondering when they will start seeing perp walks for all the fraudulent activity they are certain is out there.
Then there are those of us taking a wait-and-see attitude. A few conservative Democrats, perhaps most independents, and that part of the Republican party that has not fallen into the cult of Trump. I reside in this camp – a conservative-leaning Libertarian who never voted for Trump or his Democratic challengers. I hope the effort is wildly successful. I am convinced you could find a trillion dollars in annual spending cuts. I have no doubt this would be painful for some, but we are on an unsustainable financial trajectory as a nation.
I am also in the camp that believes we do not have a revenue problem (tax rates are high enough at all income levels, though reforming the system would be a good thing). We have a spending problem. Not just waste and fraud, but spending on programs that should not be part of the federal government's mission.
I would be happy (thrilled, really) if they found a way to reduce spending by half a trillion dollars or even a third of a trillion. That could put us on a path to eventually achieving a balanced budget. I would also like to see an improved ability to find fraud, root it out, and prosecute the fraudsters.
Given the scope of the problem, an aggressive approach seems appropriate, but some changes also seem appropriate, given the chaos we experienced in the first 100 days.
First, as much respect as I have for him, after his 130-day appointment as a “special government employee,” Elon Musk should return to his day jobs. As I write this, he has announced he will step back next month and focus on Tesla. His involvement has been inspirational to those involved in DOGE and Trump acolytes. But his value to the effort has run its course, especially on the PR front.
Second, workforce reductions should be undertaken in a more orderly fashion. Terminating probationary employees and others as a cost-saving measure while claiming they were not “performing” at the high level expected is demeaning and inappropriate. Doing so without considering and addressing the implications is chaotic.
Third, with some exceptions, the President is responsible for spending approved funds, not determining what is approved. There are valid legal questions about what appropriated funds the President can refuse to spend. Absent Congressional action, many of the spending reductions will be rejected by the courts. The President and his party are missing an opportunity to have a formal and national discussion on a range of spending issues, a debate that would likely benefit them politically.
It is expected they will soon submit a “rescission” package to Congress to stop around $9 billion in spending for USAID, the State Department, NPR, and PBS. This is a start, but also a drop in the bucket of what could ultimately be proposed. It does make sense that relatively small rescission packages would be used to ensure one proposal does not spoil a large spending reduction. I hope to see more of these and look forward to the debate on individual requests.
Fourth, direct congressional action is also important. Without it, some of the administration's efforts will be rejected by the judicial system. And so far, the Republican Congress has not stepped up. The upcoming “big, beautiful bill” should be informed by whatever has been found and documented so far. The issues and proposals should be rationally debated by Congress, not just screamed about. The best way to avoid spending is not by executive order but by a Congressional bill signed by the President.
Whatever your political persuasion, let’s hope Congress steps up and does its job.
David Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
