Labor Unions, Solar Firms Sue Over Trump EPA’s Cancellation of $7 Billion Solar Program

06 October 2025

On October 6, 2025, a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and solar companies filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rhode Island challenging the Trump administration’s decision to rescind a $7 billion grant program designed to expand solar power access in low-income communities across the United States.

The case targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its administrator, Lee Zeldin, arguing that their August move to cancel the “Solar for All” initiative violated the law by clawing back funds that had already been awarded in 2024. Plaintiffs include the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, Rhode Island Center for Justice, Solar United Neighbors, and several solar installers and energy nonprofits from around the country, along with an individual homeowner in Georgia who had applied for a solar installation under the program.

According to the complaint, sixty entities had already been granted funds under Solar for All nonprofits, tribal governments, states, and project sponsors. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA lacked legal justification to revoke those awards once they were granted. They assert that the termination undermines job creation, raises energy costs, and disrupts plans for clean energy deployment in underserved areas.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration officially announced it would terminate the Solar for All program, citing a newly passed tax and spending law that it said eliminated the legal authority to administer grants tied to the program. In his August announcement, Zeldin stated that the federal funding source for the program had been repealed and that the EPA “no longer has the authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds.”

Critics of the rollback have pointed to the legal distinction between “unobligated” funds and funds already contracted or obligated. Many argue that the law removed only future or unspent appropriations not funds already committed via legal contracts. These critics and the lawsuit contend that canceling the grants already obligated exceeds the EPA’s legal power.

Among the consequences of the cancellation are concerns over delayed or canceled solar installations that had been planned under the program, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities that were counted on to benefit from cleaner, more affordable energy access. The plaintiffs also frame the cancellation as favoring fossil fuel interests by undermining incentives for distributed renewable energy.

The lawsuit asks a federal court to order the EPA to reinstate the canceled grants and resume the Solar for All program. It presses the agency to follow through on its prior commitments and to restore the funding flow for projects that were already approved or underway.

This legal challenge comes amid broader rollbacks in federal support for clean energy. Earlier actions by the administration have eliminated or reduced billions in climate and green funding embedded in prior legislation. Observers view the lawsuit as part of a larger fight over the direction of U.S. climate and energy policy under shifting political currents.

For solar developers, nonprofits, and communities that had committed to projects under Solar for All, the cancellation produces financial uncertainty, delayed development timelines, and potential losses. For many lower-income households, the anticipated savings on energy bills and increased resilience from distributed power access now hang in doubt.

Whether the court will side with the plaintiffs remains to be seen. But this case promises to test the limits of executive authority in altering grant commitments and may set precedent for how far agencies can reinterpret or reverse funding decisions once money is in motion.