They Admitted It in Court: Trump Canceled Billions to Punish States That Voted Against Him

The Trump administration admitted in court that it canceled billions in federal clean-energy grants based solely on whether states voted for Trump in 2024, targeting projects in states that backed Kamala Harris and had two Democratic senators, while sparing Republican states whose grants its own review had flagged for cancellation.

Despite the major news networks not reporting on this story, it’s important news you should know about, and so I wanted to share the details in this quick Saturday morning video before heading out for an early morning paddle.

Here’s the referenced linked document.

Legal Exposure:

Appropriations Clause and Impoundment Control Act: Refusing to spend funds Congress appropriated, for political reasons and outside the ICA’s procedures, is an unlawful impoundment.

First Amendment political discrimination and unconstitutional conditions: Pulling federal benefits to punish political affiliation runs against the patronage-retaliation cases, though extending that individual-focused doctrine to a state’s aggregate vote is untested.

Equal protection under the Fifth Amendment: Treating states differently based purely on how they voted, with the government conceding no policy justification, fits the rule that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate purpose.

Administrative Procedure Act, arbitrary and capricious and pretext: Canceling grants on a waste rationale that the filings show was actually electoral is textbook pretext, but a 2025 jurisdictional fight may force these payment claims out of district court and into the Court of Federal Claims.

Take Care Clause and oath of office: Selectively refusing to execute appropriations to punish opponents violates the duty of faithful execution, though this works mainly as an impeachment theory rather than a standalone lawsuit.

False statements to Congress and perjury: If the record contradicts Secretary Wright’s testimony that no decisions were political, that raises exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and, if he was sworn, § 1621, subject to a high materiality-and-intent bar.

Hatch Act and executive ethics: Using official authority over grants to reward states that voted a certain way cuts against the bar on leveraging office to affect elections, though the President and Vice President are exempt and some appointees have carve-outs.

Impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors: Weaponizing the spending power to punish political opponents is an abuse-of-power theory that does not require an indictable crime and echoes the first Trump impeachment. This is something a new majority in Congress may want to review after the midterms.

Before I do more of these, I have a quick question for you.

Did you enjoy this video, or do you prefer my written posts?

I’m thinking about sharing more videos like this whenever breaking news happens so I can give you timely analysis while the story is still unfolding. I’ll only do more of them if that’s what you want.

Let me know your preference in the comments. I read them all. Thanks!

Mitch Jackson, Esq.

Uncensored Objection ™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.