TL/DR –
A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully cancelled grants for the $7 billion Solar for All program, designed to expand solar energy access in low-income communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded its authority when it terminated the program and its existing grants. The EPA had argued that a 2025 law repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which funded the Solar for All program, but the judge found that the rescinded money had already been committed to grant recipients and thus the program could continue.
Judge Revives $7 Billion Solar for All Program
The Solar for All scheme, a $7 billion initiative aimed at increasing solar energy usage in underprivileged communities across the nation, has been reinstated by a federal judge in Rhode Island. The program had previously been cancelled by the Trump administration, a move the judge deemed unlawful.
On September 18, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy overturned the Trump administration’s controversial decision to terminate the Solar for All program. She ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had overstepped its bounds, and thus her decision granted victory to the Rhode Island AFL-CIO and other challengers who contested the cancellation.
Solar for All Program: A Brief Backgrounder
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act gave birth to the Solar for All program as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. By the deadline of September 2024, the EPA had allocated the entire $7 billion to 60 recipients, spanning states, municipalities, Tribal governments, and nonprofits. The key objective of the program was to provide over 900,000 households with access to community and residential solar projects.
However, in August 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the termination of the program. This announcement followed President Donald Trump’s signing of a tax and spending law that rescinded the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The administration justified the termination by asserting that the repeal deprived the agency of the authority to continue administering Solar for All.
Judge McElroy’s Decision
Rejecting the administration’s argument, Judge McElroy pointed out that Congress had allocated a different course. The 2025 law only took back unobligated funds, whereas the entire $7 billion for Solar for All had already been pledged to grant recipients.
The judge also pointed out that the EPA still had billions of dollars reserved for operating expenses, including staff costs and expenses related to managing grant programs. These remaining funds countered the administration’s claim that the agency lacked the resources or authority to oversee established grants.
Furthermore, Judge McElroy made a significant distinction between committed funds and those set aside for future awards. She concluded that Congress only abolished the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for future purposes, while permitting existing grant awards to persist.
A contrary argument had been proposed by the EPA, asserting that the plaintiffs were only contesting individual grant terminations, issues that should be resolved in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. However, Judge McElroy interpreted the case as a broader challenge to the agency’s decision to altogether terminate the Solar for All program.
Impact on Plaintiffs
Several plaintiffs had already made significant investments in projects associated with the program. The judge found that 2KB Energy Services, which lost a $1.64 million subgrant contract and had invested in equipment and personnel in anticipation of the funding, had standing.
Judge McElroy nullified the EPA’s cancellation decision without issuing a separate permanent injunction. She outlined that the government’s claim that vacating the action would preclude continued execution of the termination provided sufficient relief.
The verdict marks another milestone in the ongoing legal battles surrounding federal climate funding, which the Trump administration has made repeated attempts to dismantle. Recipients of the Solar for All grants have launched independent cases in various federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims over the loss of their awards.
While the EPA is reviewing Judge McElroy’s decision and considering an appeal, her ruling remains in effect. This leaves the Solar for All grants intact unless the government attains a different outcome through further litigation.
The case in question is Rhode Island AFL-CIO et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
—
Read More US Economic News