Vice President Kamala Harris visits a solar array before making remarks in support of the Inflation Reduction Act at the University at Buffalo in New York. Malik Rainey/CNP/Zuma

There is a line ” in the sprawling 900-hundred-page document known as Project 2025 that outlines a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money intended to help protect some of the nation’s most disadvantaged people from pollution and effects of global warming.

The 2025 Project, developed by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, is widely recognized as a plan for a potential Trump presidency—despite his efforts to distance himself from there. The line proposes ending “all subsidies to advocacy groups” and reviewing “what potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.” This almost certainly targets initiatives passed under President Joe Biden that seek to serve communities disproportionately affected by climate change or legacy pollution, also known as environmental justice communities.

The Inflation Reduction Act allocated an estimated amount 1.2 trillion in federal dollars to fund various programs, most of which focused on climate change. This is the largest investment the United States has ever made in climate action. Additionally, Biden’s Justice 40 initiative aims to ensure that 40% of federal climate-related funding goes to marginalized communities.

Part of the IRA’s existing funds are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and go to advocacy groups, which often partner with state and local governments to help provide money to the most needy people in the country. A subset of advocacy groups that receive federal funding are environmental justice groups, which advocate for climate change mitigation and increased access to a pollution-free environment for residents of low-income communities and BIPOC, who are often located disproportionately close to sources of pollution.

If he followed the Project 2025 proposal, a Trump EPA would almost certainly end such programs. The Heritage Foundation has already targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public and private institutions, like my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this year. (Although it is interesting to note that race is not a factor that the Justice 40 initiative takes into account when deciding what constitutes a disadvantaged community.)

Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA Chief of Staff under the Trump administration which worked for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the late Republican Sen. James Inhofe, wrote the environmental policy chapter of Project 2025. She says targeting grant programs at advocacy groups made part of a plan to reevaluate how the agency spends its money. “This is part of a recommendation to review all pending grants to ensure they are used for tangible environmental improvements and not for political purposes,” she says. When I asked how would they distinguish between grants intended for political purposes and those intended to support environmental goals, she did not answer.

She has previously accused environmental grant recipients of being secret Democratic Party supporters. In 2023, she said RealClear Investigations, “These groups are political front groups that are simply created to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into Democratic campaigns under the guise of doing something good. »

An EPA spokesperson says that instead, the agency reviews applicants based on their ability to address climate change, environmental justice issues and provide benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities. “We’re meeting the needs of all Americans,” says Zealan Hoover, senior advisor to the EPA Administrator and chief implementation officer. “Regardless of political, socio-economic or geographic boundaries. »

Access to solar energy can be a matter of life and death. Alexia Leclercq, policy director of PODER, an environmental justice organization based in East Austin, Texas, saw this firsthand a few years ago. “During the winter storm,” she said, referring to the 2021s. Winter storm Uri, which killed 246 people“lack of power led to people dying.”

Residents across the state were surprised by the cold snap, which plunged normally mild temperatures into single digits in Austin. The surprise storm overwhelmed the state’s utility companies, which had not anticipated this eventuality. Therefore, 69 percent of Texans lost power at some point during the week of the storm. People with solar power would not have needed to rely on the grid to heat their homes.

Unfortunately, solar power still remains very expensive and inaccessible,” explains Leclercq. Her organization benefited from the IRA’s Solar for All program to try to help members of the predominantly Latino East Austin community install and use solar energy.

Like other small environmental justice organizations, PODER didn’t always apply for federal grants because it didn’t have the capacity to meet federal reporting requirements, Leclercq says. But a new flow of hired entrepreneurs of the EPA designed to assist community groups and increase applicants’ knowledge of the grant process has been a great help. “Last year was actually the first time we participated in a federal funding application,” she said.

Leclerq says that while the Biden administration has attempted to rectify past oversight of environmental justice communities by ensuring they get the funding and grants they need, IRA grants have been an imperfect solution . She thinks the administration could do more to clarify the details of the program.

“It’s really confusing, to be honest,” Leclercq says. “A lot of people are wondering, ‘Where can I find the grant?’ How do I know if this fits my program? How can I find out the deadlines?’ » She also notes that there is often “inside information” that is not widely available about actual timelines compared to that publicly released.

Mijin Cha, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, also says the current subsidy structure is too onerous and inefficient, often funneling money to different groups to provide these benefits to underserved people. “The federal government gives money to a third party, and then that third party distributes the money,” Cha explains. “Isn’t it more efficient to just make it a direct investment? »

Despite its flaws, many beneficiaries say the Biden administration’s attempt to address historic discrimination that has saddled communities of color with legacy pollution or made them more vulnerable to climate change is a step in the right direction. The EPA has already allocated $234 million to environmental justice groups to help address these issues. Many other groups like PODER benefit from the $27 billion allocated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is the umbrella program of Solar for All.

As for the allegation that the beneficiaries might be political front groups? “It is unethical and harmful for people to publicly spread misinformation and lies about Justice,”40 says Leclercq. “If they don’t want to fund climate solutions, they should just own them.”

Even if Trump won election and implement the Project 2025 plan to eliminate these federal subsidies, the flow of funding would not stop anytime soon. There are many safeguards in the federal grant system, Hoover says. “Our grant agreements are legally binding agreements between the federal government and a grantee with strong legal protections,” he says.

Hoover told me that most of the IRA’s funding has already been obligated, meaning the federal government is legally obligated to pay for it. But the money given does not last forever; in the case of most of these programs, it lasts 3 to 5 years. A President Trump could potentially eliminate these programs as soon as funding runs out.

For now, Hoover says the EPA is working to document the environmental justice benefits of the IRA. “We are convinced that the best defense of these programs will be the tangible impact on these communities and on people who are healthier and safer today than they were four years ago,” he said.