Federal officials confirm rigorous anti-fraud review consisted of checking whether both senators had a “D” next to their names
WASHINGTON— After months of warning that billions of dollars in clean-energy grants had been canceled to protect taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump administration acknowledged in court this month that the projects’ chief financial irregularity was being located near Democrats.
According to federal filings, the administration terminated 284 grants “based solely” on political criteria, using an advanced auditing system that reportedly combined Electoral College results, Senate party affiliation, and the question, “Did these people clap enthusiastically enough during the last State of the Union?”
“With one exception, every canceled project had some connection to a state that voted for Kamala Harris and had two Democratic-caucusing senators,” an Energy Department attorney told the court, apparently reading aloud from a document titled Things We Probably Should Not Have Put in Writing.
Officials emphasized that the projects were not selected because of poor performance, excessive cost, statutory problems, programmatic concerns, or any of the other tedious factors traditionally associated with governing.
Instead, the administration relied on what one fictional senior budget official called “the most transparent possible standard: whether the president is still mad at your state.”
“We examined each grant individually,” the fictional official said. “First, we looked at the project’s location. Then we looked at the 2024 electoral map. Finally, we slammed a large red rubber stamp reading ‘GREEN NEW SCAM’ onto anything west of New Jersey that looked insufficiently grateful.”
The Energy Department had originally recommended canceling more than 600 grants across states represented by both parties. But the White House budget office ultimately spared hundreds of projects located in Republican states, despite the department’s recommendation that they, too, be terminated.
Administration officials described that discrepancy as evidence that the system was working exactly as intended.
“A wasteful project in a Republican state is not waste,” explained fictional federal grants scholar Dr. Marvin Receipt. “It is a strategic regional investment supporting hardworking Americans, economic resilience, and possibly a ribbon-cutting ceremony featuring a congressman the president has seen on television.”
By contrast, Receipt added, an identical project in a Democratic state is “a woke solar panel attempting to groom the electrical grid.”
The cancellations were announced during a government shutdown fight in which the White House was pressuring Democratic lawmakers over federal spending. At the time, President Trump openly threatened to slash what he called “Democrat agencies,” while budget director Russell Vought celebrated the cancellation of nearly $8 billion in what he described as “Green New Scam funding.”
Experts said the newly disclosed political criteria could transform federal grant administration by replacing the complicated existing system of applications, congressional appropriations, agency review, legal requirements, and performance monitoring with a simpler question:
Did your governor say something nice about Trump recently?
Under proposed new grant rules, the president could gain even greater control over more than $1 trillion in annual federal funding. Critics worry the framework would allow future administrations to treat congressionally approved aid like a casino rewards program, awarding infrastructure funding according to presidential loyalty points.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment, though fictional officials stressed that silence should not be interpreted as an inability to explain the policy.
“We can absolutely explain it,” said a fictional administration spokesperson while slowly backing into a shrub. “Taxpayer money must never be distributed according to ideology unless the ideology determining its distribution is ours.”
The administration is reportedly developing a new federal grant application to streamline the process. In addition to describing their project, applicants will be required to provide their state’s election results, the party affiliation of both senators, five years of social-media posts, and a 250-word essay answering the prompt: “What specifically have you done to deserve electricity?”
Projects in favored states will proceed to technical review. Projects in Democratic states will receive an automated rejection reading, “After careful consideration, we regret to inform you that Pennsylvania happened.”
Budget officials also insisted that the policy should not be viewed as political retaliation, preferring the more neutral term “geographically targeted fiscal encouragement.”
“This is not about punishing Americans for how their states voted,” said another fictional official. “It is about teaching 74 million people that federal assistance is a privilege reserved for citizens who successfully anticipate the president’s emotional needs.”
At press time, the administration had announced a sweeping new initiative to eliminate waste throughout the federal government by redirecting all of it to people who agreed with them.
After promising to drain the swamp, the administration discovered it was much easier to install a loyalty-card scanner at the edge of it.