By Steve Milloy

March 3, 2025 - Since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, more than $140 billion has been spent, with much of it going to red states. The Biden administration didn’t send this money to red states to be bipartisan or fair. It sent the money to red states to purchase red state politicians.

Media reports such as this one will certainly remind red state politicians of that reality. “Trump Is Freezing Money for Clean Energy. Red States Have the Most to Lose,” reads a New York Times headline, adding, “About 80 percent of manufacturing investments spurred by a Biden era climate law have vowed to Republican districts. Efforts to stop federal payments are already causing pain.”

With the 2026 midterm election cycle set to begin soon, and control of the House on a razor’s  edge, I wouldn’t be surprised if Speaker Mike Johnson had trouble whipping up enough House Republican votes to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, even with the help of Trump and Department of Government Efficiency leader Elon Musk. So Trump may have to end “Green New Deal” spending on his own and in a way that will pass judicial muster at the Supreme Court. Here’s the path forward.

The substantive and scientific basis for the “Green New Deal” spending is a 2009 Obama Environmental Protection Agency rule called the “endangerment finding,” which declared that greenhouse gas emissions are harming public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is not etched in stone and could be repealed by Trump EPA administrator Lee Zeldin.

Conveniently, the same executive order calling for the “Green New Deal” to be terminated also contains a provision for EPA to commence a process for reviewing the endangerment finding in partnership with the White House Office of Management and Budget. That rulemaking process could result in the repeal of the endangerment finding in less than a year.

Once the endangerment finding is repealed, “Green New Deal” spending, even though ordered by Congress, wouldn’t have a factual leg to stand on. Absent a factual basis, Trump could simply refuse to authorize any further spending. As long as the endangerment finding was properly repealed, it’s doubtful that the Supreme Court would rule that the executive branch must waste taxpayer money on the “Green New Deal,” irrespective of the fact that the spending is pointless.

Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Policy Institute.