The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made significant cuts to funding previously allocated to environmental and activist groups under the Biden administration, a move that has drawn attention and sparked debate. On February 18, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency, in collaboration with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), would freeze $67.4 million of the $77.1 million in grants that were set to be distributed to various left-leaning organizations.
Zeldin, who has been in office for just a few weeks, is making a concerted effort to reshape the agency’s priorities and eliminate what he describes as "wasteful spending." He emphasized that his administration aims to ensure that every dollar spent by the EPA is directed toward protecting public health and the environment. "We will make sure every penny spent by EPA goes towards protecting human health and the environment, and Powering the Great American Comeback," Zeldin stated during the announcement.
The cuts come as part of a broader initiative to scrutinize past spending practices and identify areas of waste, fraud, and abuse. The EPA has partnered with DOGE to conduct a thorough review of the agency’s financial commitments. Zeldin has expressed concerns over what he claims are billions of dollars hastily allocated by the previous administration to organizations that may not have been adequately vetted.
Among the funding that has come under scrutiny is $2 billion earmarked for Power Forward Communities, a green group associated with political activist Stacey Abrams. Zeldin raised alarms over the fact that this organization reported only $100 in revenue for the previous year, yet was set to receive a staggering amount in federal funds. "It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue," he remarked.
The decision to cut these grants has been framed by Zeldin as a step towards restoring fiscal responsibility within the government. He has pledged to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars, aiming to reverse what he perceives as the previous administration’s reckless financial practices. The move has elicited mixed reactions, with supporters applauding the cuts as necessary for accountability, while critics argue that the funding was essential for environmental justice initiatives.
As the EPA continues to assess its financial commitments and priorities, the outcome of these cuts and the overall impact on environmental programs will be closely watched by both advocates and opponents of the new administration’s policies.