SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"These bipartisan investments need to start flowing immediately," the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee said of the GAO finding as a lawsuit over the funding got a boost from green groups.
Key congressional Democrats on Thursday welcomed a government watchdog's finding that the Trump administration unlawfully withheld appropriated funds for building electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the United States‚ a decision that came as advocacy groups joined a related lawsuit filed by state attorneys general.
Shortly after returning to office in January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to pause disbursement of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, specifically mentioning the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program.
In response, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and one of its agencies, the Federal Highway Administration, in February canceled previously issued guidance for the NEVI program and suspended plans that states had submitted for grant money—which led to calls for Congress to stand up to the administration's "illegal attempts to halt legally mandated funding."
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its Thursday decision that the department violated the Impoundment Control Act: "DOT is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program. While DOT cannot withhold these funds under the ICA, DOT could propose funds for rescission or otherwise propose legislation to make changes to the NEVI Formula Program for consideration by Congress."
"The Trump administration didn't just break the law—it shortchanged the American people."
Politicoreported that "the GAO could issue similar rulings in the coming months, as the independent, nonpartisan watchdog agency works through at least 39 investigations into whether the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act. GAO rulings are nonbinding but could influence Congress' response to... Trump's freezing of billions of dollars lawmakers intended to flow to specific programs and projects, as well as the many ongoing lawsuits challenging the president's tactics."
In a Thursday statement about the GAO findings, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said, "This legal decision affirms what we've long known: The president is breaking the law to block funding Congress passed on a bipartisan basis and that is owed to the American people—simply because he disagrees with it. This plain fact is unacceptable—and it cannot stand any longer."
"Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law by wide margins and specifically provided funding for every state to build out a network of chargers for the electric vehicles that families are increasingly turning to and that are being made right here in America, she continued. "These investments should be getting out the door—creating new jobs and helping Americans get where they need to go without interruption—but President Trump has illegally choked this funding off."
"These bipartisan investments need to start flowing immediately—as do the hundreds of billions of dollars in other investments President Trump is holding up," she added, taking aim at his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director. "I don't care about Russ Vought's personal interpretation of our spending laws; the Constitution is clear, and President Trump simply does not have the power of the purse—Congress does."
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) released a similar statement welcoming the GAO's new legal opinion that "the Trump administration broke the law when it blocked funding that Congress had already approved."
"That money was supposed to build and maintain a nationwide EV charging network—and with it, create good-paying jobs in communities across the country," he stressed. "Instead, the administration stalled economic growth, delayed critical infrastructure, and undermined job creation—all without a shred of legal authority."
"This wasn't just a legal violation. It was an economic setback for American workers, and a direct hit to the communities counting on these investments," Boyle added. "The Trump administration didn't just break the law—it shortchanged the American people."
According to Politico, while the DOT could not be reached for comment, an OMB spokesperson called GAO's opinion "wrong" and said the department is "appropriately using the authority granted to it by statute to review state plans."
Standing up for cleaner vehicles and clean air. @sierraclub.org @climatesolutions.org @earthjustice.org and allies sue Trump Admin for illegally impounding funds that Congress appropriated for EV charging. www.sierraclub.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Ross Macfarlane (@rossmacfarlane.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM
The attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia disagree, and have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Sierra Club, CleanAIRE N.C., Climate Solutions, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Plug In America, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the West End Revitalization Association joined that legal challenge on Thursday.
"Donald Trump is trying to cut jobs, increase pollution, and endanger our health. We refuse to let him," said Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous in a statement. "NEVI benefits everyone, whether you drive an EV or not, and the only people who benefit from blocking it are Big Oil and auto executives seeking to keep us hooked on fossil fuel-powered cars, while communities in every corner of the country lose out on infrastructure investments in our growing clean energy economy."
"The NEVI program is working and states are legally entitled to the money allocated to them by Congress," Jealous added. "Once again, we are taking the Trump administration to court over its reckless and illegal actions."
With governments "scaling back their already meager" actions to tackle climate breakdown, said one ecologist, "our present-day human culture is on a suicide course."
Less than six months away from the next United Nations summit for parties to the Paris climate agreement, scientists on Tuesday released a study showing that even meeting the deal's 1.5°C temperature target could lead to significant sea-level rise that drives seriously disruptive migration inland.
Governments that signed on to the 2015 treaty aim to take action to limit global temperature rise by 2100 to 1.5°C beyond preindustrial levels. Last year was not only the hottest in human history but also the first in which the average global temperature exceeded 1.5°C. Multiple studies have warned of major impacts from even temporarily overshooting the target, bolstering demands for policymakers to dramatically rein in planet-heating fossil fuels.
The study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications Earth and Environmentwarns that 1.5°C "is too high" and even the current 1.2°C, "if sustained, is likely to generate several meters of sea-level rise over the coming centuries, causing extensive loss and damage to coastal populations and challenging the implementation of adaptation measures."
"To avoid this requires a global mean temperature that is cooler than present and which we hypothesize to be closer to +1°C above preindustrial, possibly even lower, but further work is urgently required to more precisely determine a 'safe limit' for ice sheets," the paper states, referring to Antarctica and Greenland's continental glaciers.
Co-author Jonathan Bamber told journalists that "what we mean by safe limit is one which allows some level of adaptation, rather than catastrophic inland migration and forced migration, and the safe limit is roughly 1 centimeter a year of sea-level rise."
"If you get to that, then it becomes extremely challenging for any kind of adaptation, and you're going to see massive land migration on scales that we've never witnessed in modern civilization," said the University of Bristol professor.
In terms of timing, study lead author Chris Stokes, from the United Kingdom's Durham University, said in a statement that "rates of 1 centimeter per year are not out of the question within the lifetime of our young people."
- YouTube
There are currently around 8.18 billion people on the planet. The study—funded by the United Kingdom's Natural Environment Research Council—says that "continued mass loss from ice sheets poses an existential threat to the world's coastal populations, with an estimated 1 billion people inhabiting land less than 10 meters above sea level and around 230 million living within 1 meter."
"Without adaptation, conservative estimates suggest that 20 centimeters of [sea-level rise] by 2050 would lead to average global flood losses of $1 trillion or more per year for the world's 136 largest coastal cities," says the study, also co-authored by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Andrea Dutton and University of Massachusetts Amherst's Rob DeConto in the United States.
DeConto said Tuesday that "it is important to stress that these accelerating changes in the ice sheets and their contributions to sea level should be considered permanent on multigenerational timescales."
"Even if the Earth returns to its preindustrial temperature, it will still take hundreds to perhaps thousands of years for the ice sheets to recover," the professor explained. "If too much ice is lost, parts of these ice sheets may not recover until the Earth enters the next ice age. In other words, land lost to sea-level rise from melting ice sheets will be lost for a very, very long time. That's why it is so critical to limit warming in the first place."
Not really a surprise We are already committed to a 12m+ sea-level rise, sufficient to drown every coastal town and city on the planet The only question is how long will this take www.theguardian.com/environment/...
[image or embed]
— Prof Bill McGuire (@profbillmcguire.bsky.social) May 20, 2025 at 7:50 AM
While the paper sparked some international alarm, Stokes highlighted what he called "a reason for hope," which is that "we only have to go back to the early 1990s to find a time when the ice sheets looked far healthier."
"Global temperatures were around 1°C above preindustrial back then, and carbon dioxide concentrations were 350 parts per million, which others have suggested is a much safer limit for planet Earth," he said. "Carbon dioxide concentrations are currently around 424 parts per million and continue to increase."
The new paper continues an intense stream of bleak studies on the worsening climate emergency, and specifically, looming sea-level rise. Another, published by the journal Nature in February, shows that glaciers have lost an average of 273 billion metric tons of ice annually since 2000.
Despite scientists' warnings, the government whose country is responsible for the largest share of historical planet-heating emissions, the United States, is actually working to boost the fossil fuel industry. Upon returning to office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump declared an "energy emergency" and ditched the Paris agreement.
Responding to the new study on social media, Scottish ecologist Alan Watson Featherstone called out both the U.S. and U.K. governments. He said that with many countries "scaling back their already meager and [totally] inadequate actions to address climate breakdown, our present-day human culture is on a suicide course."
The interview with Mary Robinson comes as the Trump administration seeks to undercut climate research and congressional Republicans target portions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson is urging the European Union to step up and lead the way on combating the climate emergency in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle the U.S. response to the crisis. Her remarks come as congressional Republicans are moving ahead with a plan to scale back Democrats' signature climate law passed in 2022.
Speaking on a Thursday episode of the podcast "Radio Schuman" from Euronews, Robinson said that she is "hoping that there will be a sense that actually the E.U. now has an opportunity, because the United States is being badly led on climate, actually stupidly led on climate."
Robinson highlighted the fact that Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement, the global treaty aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, reprising a move from his first term in office. She also noted the Trump administration's efforts to undercut climate research. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts working on the 6th National Climate Assessment, the government's flagship climate report.
These moves from the U.S. come as the E.U. has tempered its climate ambitions.
When asked whether she's critical of how the E.U. is currently handling climate change, Robinson said that the "E.U. is taking a long time, and we would need to see leadership now, but it's better to get good leadership than rush leadership."
As part of an independent group of global leaders called The Elders, Robinson recently met with E.U. officials where she and her fellow leaders sought to "encourage Europe to step up."
"The E.U. should step up on climate and nature and fulfill the commitments that are necessary," she told the Euronews.
On top of the actions by the Trump administration Robinson highlighted, a GOP megabill currently making its way through Congress includes provisions that target the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—a move that green groups have slammed.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a portion of the bill that would take back billions of dollars in unspent funds from IRA grant programs, and Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee are pressing ahead with a portion of the bill that repeals clean energy incentives under the IRA.
"The idea that corporate polluters can pay a fee to freely pollute our communities is beyond the pale," said one environmental advocate.
Lawmakers and green groups on Monday sounded the alarm on the energy and environmental provisions in the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee's section of a Republican-backed tax and spending megabill, which is slated to be marked up in a committee meeting on Tuesday.
Critics are warning the proposal will harm regular Americans by seeking savings through a take back of funds from various programs in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the signature climate legislation signed into law under former U.S. President Joe Biden, and includes "giveaways" for oil and gas companies.
Congressional Republicans are pressing ahead with a spending and tax cuts bill that will primarily benefit the wealthy and would be paid for in part through steep cuts to Medicaid, despite widespread opposition. Those cuts were first fleshed out in a House budget blueprint earlier this year and are part of the budget bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the text of which was unveiled on Sunday. But Medicaid cuts are not the only aspect of the bill drawing scrutiny.
"Giving giant tax breaks to billionaires while increasing electric bills for American families is wrong. Republicans are sacrificing America's energy dominance while setting up a 'pay to play' scheme for polluters to bribe the Trump Administration to obtain energy permits," said Energy Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) on Monday. "Dismantling our landmark Inflation Reduction Act will kill jobs, hurt businesses, and drive-up Americans' energy costs."
The legislation includes a provision that would allow energy developers to access an expedited permitting review if they pay $10 million or one percent of the anticipated cost of the construction of the project.
Another provision would have companies applying to export or import natural gas pay a nonrefundable $1 million fee and in return have their project "deemed to be in the public interest."
"The idea that corporate polluters can pay a fee to freely pollute our communities is beyond the pale," said Mahyar Sorour, a director of the Beyond Fossil Fuels Policy at the Sierra Club, on Monday.
"While it slashes much-needed support for clean energy and climate resilience, it would allow fossil fuel companies to pay to get their project approved. That's not just wrong, it's un-American," said Alexandra Adams, chief policy advocacy officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
According to E&E News, the legislation aims to rescind "the unobligated balance" of IRA funds for multiple Department of Energy programs, such as money meant for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
"Republicans just proposed cutting thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in clean energy funding, and billions of dollars in healthcare funding from their own districts. Why? Because Big Oil and healthcare CEOs told them to. This is not how a democracy should function. This is oligarchy in action," said Sunrise Movement executive director Aru Shiney-Ajay in a statement on Monday.
"Young people fought tooth and nail for the funding now on the chopping block," added Shiney-Ajay, invoking the organizing and activism that went into pressuring lawmakers to pass the IRA.
Republicans are also planning to rescind the unobligated balances from the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, an IRA program that is supposed to support clean energy projects primarily for historically marginalized and low-income communities, per E&E.
What's more, according to E&E, the plan would go after a variety of IRA programs, such as those designed to reduce air pollution at schools and ports and limit emissions from diesel engines. Also it takes aim at the IRA's methane fee, which levies a fee on oil and gas companies who produce too much planet-warming methane.
"House Republicans are bending over backwards to give handouts to big polluters while their constituents pay the price of worse pollution and higher energy bills," said Sorour. "This is a terrible bill for the American people. The House should get their priorities straight and reject this proposal."