EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Axed 283 Grants 'Solely' Based on Political Identity — Specifically Targeting Kamala Harris' 'Blue States'
The Trump administration acknowledged 283 federal energy grants axed in October 2025 fell into a 'Blue State' category tied to states that backed Harris.
Aug. 7 2026, Published 6:45 p.m. ET
President Trump's administration axed 283 federal energy grants tied to states that backed Kamala Harris in the 2024 election – and the Department of Energy has now acknowledged the grants were selected solely because of the states' political identity, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
In a new court filing obtained by Radar in a federal lawsuit against Trump and his administration, the DOE agreed to a series of stipulated facts surrounding hundreds of grants considered for cancellation.
283 'Blue State' Grants Axed
The Trump administration axed 284 federal energy grants in October 2025.
According to the filing, Energy Secretary Chris Wright established a Portfolio Review Process in May 2025 requiring DOE offices to evaluate financial assistance awards and recommend whether individual grants should be retained, modified, or terminated.
In September 2025, DOE submitted lists of thousands of reviewed awards to the Office of Management and Budget. Among them, 624 grants had been designated for either "termination" or "cancel."
But what happened next created a striking political divide.
OMB identified 284 grants for inclusion in an October 2025 tranche of termination notices, which DOE subsequently announced had been terminated.
Kamala Harris States Targeted
All but one of the 284 grants targeted states that backed Kamala Harris.
With just one exception, all 284 grants were connected to states that awarded their electoral votes to Harris in the 2024 presidential election and had two Democratic-caucusing senators – a category DOE identifies in the filing as "Blue State" grants.
In other words, of the 284 grants OMB ultimately singled out for the October termination round, 283 were "Blue State" grants – and just one was not.
Meanwhile, approximately 340 other grants that had also been proposed for termination were not canceled in October – and had still not been terminated when the stipulation was filed.
A Stark Political Divide
DOE acknowledged the grants were selected 'solely' based on states' political identity.
Every one of those grants was connected to a state that either awarded its electoral votes to Trump in 2024 or had at least one Republican-caucusing senator, according to DOE.
DOE acknowledged the October selections were not driven by concerns over the programs themselves. The agency accepted that neither the grants' inclusion in the termination tranche nor the ARCHES grant at the center of the litigation was based on "any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor."
Instead, DOE accepted that the grants were included "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state" – specifically whether the recipient or project was located in a Blue State or non-Blue State.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Roughly 340 proposed grants cuts tied to Trump states were spared.
DOE further acknowledged the different treatment of Blue State and non-Blue State grants was not rationally connected to the agency's past or current priorities. The political distinction was not even part of DOE's original Portfolio Review Process.
According to the stipulation, political identity was not among the factors DOE program offices considered when evaluating grants, and those offices had initially proposed terminating similarly situated grants in both Blue and non-Blue States.
The revelations emerged as part of Neeta Thakur et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., a federal lawsuit in California involving University of California researchers and recipients of DOE funding.
