A Major Trump Energy Scandal Is Flying Under the Radar. It’s a Twisted Repeat of History.

If you expected today’s newsletter to be about Donald Trump’s threats to do a bunch of war crimes in Iran, or perhaps about the president’s petulant rant at the make-up White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, I can’t say I blame you. The former is a huge deal, and the latter is the sort of thing that Trump has successfully used for a decade to keep the conversation on his inane rhetoric rather than his policy failures. But today I want to focus on a story from Friday that would have been a massive scandal under any other administration. In our timeline, it got some pickup last week, but it’s already been largely forgotten.

The Trump administration canceled $7.5 billion in federal funding for clean energy projects in blue states, and it did so simply because those states had voted against Trump in the most recent election.

Wait, hold up. That’s a pretty big claim. How do you expect me to believe it?

Because the administration admitted it in court! In papers filed earlier this month (and highlighted Friday by a pair of New York Times reporters I really admire), the administration confessed to canceling Biden-era funding “ based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

In October, the Trump administration clawed back grants the Biden administration (with Congress’ approval) had allocated to support clean energy development. Trump’s team framed its “Actually, yeah, let’s cook the planet” agenda as a strike against wasting taxpayer dollars. That logic was already suspect, as it’s tough to claim that taxpayer dollars are being “wasted” on technologies aimed at keeping the planet suitable for human habitation. But beyond that, the framing was a lie: Barring one exception, the administration admitted in court, the funding was choked off only in states that had voted for Kamala Harris and had two Democratic senators. In red states, the cash continues to flow.

Some of the groups who had their grants canceled sued in an effort to get their funding. The administration divulged this information as part of a deal to avoid having to turn over more evidence about the decisions. The Times writes: “That process could have required federal agencies to hand over more damaging records.”

So, basically, the administration not only nixed investment aimed at fighting climate change, but it did so with the express purpose of punishing states that didn’t vote for Trump.

OK, but you said this would have been a massive scandal in another administration. How do you know?

Oh, great. Everyone loves it when journalists talk about themselves! What happened?

So glad you asked. The Obama administration was accused of allocating clean-energy funding based on political allegiance, and it became a scandal that dragged on for years, reshaping the public’s perception of the success of Barack Obama’s climate program and becoming a major political liability.

In 2011, a solar energy manufacturer named Solyndra declared bankruptcy. The company had been the beneficiary of a federal “loan guarantee” program that aimed to spur investment in experimental technologies that were unproven but could yield huge financial or climate dividends. That didn’t happen to Solyndra, which ended up going under due to foreign competition and other factors.

There were some legitimate failures here: The federal government had guaranteed $535 million in loans to the company, leaving taxpayers on the hook for a significant chunk of change. What’s more, Solyndra was credibly accused of misleading the government about its finances in order to secure backing, leading to the company being raided by the FBI. Finally, inside the Obama administration, concerns were raised about the propriety of Solyndra’s debt plans , but those weren’t properly vetted.

But it was politics, and not the facts of the case, that gave the scandal legs: Republicans had recently taken control of the House (you may remember something about a tea party revolution midway through Obama’s first term), and they were using their oversight powers to try to paint the administration as a wretched hive of scum and villainy. They flogged the Solyndra story relentlessly, claiming that the Obama administration had steered money to the company as a political favor , and calling it symbolic of a broader trend of corruption.

Republicans beat that drum daily, and in a very different era of political media, when scandals were much harder to come by, energy reporters had only one story to focus on. Eventually Solyndra became shorthand for the alleged failures of federal efforts to support technologies that would fight climate change, with Republicans continuing to wail about cronyism all the way through Obama’s 2012 reelection run.

You said you were there. Anything you want to admit to here?

I wrote a daily newsletter about energy policy at the time, and, in my efforts to be at the forefront of the news, I gobbled up those nuggets as well. Looking back, I really regret that I didn’t demand proof of serious wrongdoing before reporting so much on allegations of serious wrongdoing.

Wait, so you all covered the accusations for months. Were the bigger allegations true?

No. Just … no. A four-year federal investigation found that Solyndra misled the government and that the administration could have done a better job overseeing the Solyndra loan guarantee, basically, that the team got duped into backing a bad investment. But the investigation found no evidence of corruption or cronyism in the steering of money to Solyndra, which was the crux of the GOP accusations. The GOP never offered any proof either.

By 2014, the program as a whole actually had made money for taxpayers , as the losses were outweighed by repaid loans from companies that had found success. Of course, by that time, everyone had moved on.

Back to the present day. If I’m understanding this correctly, the Obama administration was accused of steering $500 million in clean energy loan support based on politics, though that was debunked. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has openly admitted to doing what Obama’s team was accused of, but with more than 10 times as much money, and infinitely more directly. Is this going to be a huge scandal?

I think the chances of that are basically nil, as the news cycle is already moving on. Additionally, this isn’t even the first time the administration has blatantly withheld energy funding for obviously political reasons. In fact, in December, administration officials admitted that different funding was strategically withheld from blue states during the government shutdown . I missed it back then, and I’m guessing you did too.

Well, that was long and sad enough to make one miss Ian. (Just a reminder: I’m filling the seat for a bit while he gets married.) But remember, despair isn’t activism, it’s just another impediment to progress. So, to help you stay motivated, my colleagues have curated some great recommendations to remind you that there’s still wonder and joy to be found in the world.

Learn more about the most overlooked performance in The Odyssey : Let’s take a moment to appreciate the second masterful performance we’ve seen from a puppeteer on the silver screen this year, with Sam Adams’ deep dive on Bill Irwin’s Cyclops .

Enjoy a tasty tomato treat: Summer is the perfect time to enjoy tomato sandwiches, and not just because they’re delicious. When life gets you down, Danny Palumbo opines, nothing is more soothing than eating a meal prepared with love .

Wash down your tomato treat in style: Along with eating a lovingly prepared meal, sipping on an after-work cocktail is a classic way to unwind. But as Americans consume less alcohol than ever, there are still ways to appreciate this ritual without actually imbibing. Leslie Vooris shares some recommendations for elevating your drinking experience by investing in fancy glassware .

Start a new crossword streak: What’s an 11-letter word for a cheesy polyester ’fit? What’s a six-letter word for bringing something back to the land of the living? Ponder these questions and many more as you solve our very satisfying daily crossword .

That’s all from us. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great night.