What's At Stake For OFN In Its $2.9 Billion Fight With The Trump Administration
Renewable Energy - Climate Change Policy
This Earth Day, amid renewed calls for climate action and community reinvestment, a legal battle is unfolding that could shape how the U.S. funds its green economy—and who benefits from it.
Earlier this month, Opportunity Finance Network (OFN), a national network of more than 400 community development financial institutions (CDFIs), filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for what it describes as the unlawful suspension of $2.9 billion in federal funding previously awarded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). These funds were intended to be deployed through mission-driven lenders to support clean energy financing and small business investment in historically underserved communities.
The lawsuit raises more than procedural concerns. It asks whether federal agencies can withhold congressionally authorized funds without public explanation—and what that means for nonprofit and community-based organizations increasingly called upon to implement climate solutions on the ground.
The implications for entrepreneurship and small business development are particularly striking. Under OFN's proposed model, the $2.9 billion in EPA funds would have flowed through CDFIs to finance solar installations, green infrastructure, and other energy projects—not only reducing carbon emissions but also creating thousands of contracting, installation, and service jobs for small business owners, particularly those in low-income or disadvantaged areas. Many of these entrepreneurs, often excluded from traditional banking channels, stood to benefit directly from a clean energy economy that was finally designed with them in mind.
Now, those opportunities are in limbo.
In its official statement, OFN called the freeze 'an unlawful and irresponsible decision that threatens billions in private sector capital and thousands of new jobs,' and emphasized that it 'undermines one of the most significant investments in environmental justice and economic inclusion in our nation's history.'
This legal fight is happening against the backdrop of broader political pressures on climate and equity-focused nonprofits. As Reuters recently reported, several major climate organizations are bracing for heightened scrutiny under a potential second Trump administration, including potential investigations into their tax-exempt status. While some lawmakers, such as Rep. Lee Zeldin, have publicly denied any targeting, the concern alone is having a chilling effect across the field.
So what happens next? Will this case establish legal safeguards for mission-driven implementers of federal funding? Or does it foreshadow a more precarious environment, where political shifts can stall billions in clean energy investments—and the small businesses that rely on them?
Earth Day is often a time for reflection on environmental goals. But this year, it may also prompt a deeper inquiry: What good is a climate investment strategy if the funds can be paused without warning? And what happens to small businesses, community lenders, and workforce partners who structured their growth around a now-frozen pipeline?
This is no longer just a matter of environmental justice. It's a question of economic stability, contractual trust, and the future of public-private partnerships in delivering climate and economic solutions—particularly to communities that have historically been last in line.
As the court considers OFN's claims, many in the field will be watching for more than a verdict. They'll be searching for a signal that the rules of engagement for mission-aligned funding are still intact.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major U.S. banks poised for massive shift in approach toward cryptocurrency: 'Defend your right to buy'
Despite the instability of cryptocurrency, major U.S. banks are considering a move toward supporting these emerging currencies, Reuters reported. However, they are being rightfully cautious given the shifting legal landscape and how easy it would be to run afoul of laws designed to keep our financial systems honest. Reuters spoke to industry executives about the possibility and revealed that internal discussions are already happening regarding the potential change. However, no bank wants to make the first move. "When I look at the bitcoin universe, the leverage in the system, the misuse in the system, the money laundering issues, trafficking, I'm not a fan of it," said Jamie Dimon, CEO of the largest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, per Reuters. "We're going to allow you to buy it, we're not going to custody it. ... I don't think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy bitcoin." It's not surprising that banks have their eye on this move. President Trump has courted cryptocurrency enthusiasts with promises to create a federal cryptocurrency reserve and make other investments as president. However, it's also not surprising that they're hanging back. The risk is high, and anti-money laundering rules and other regulations could sharply limit their activities, with no guarantees yet as to how those rules may change. When banks do enter the game, it will likely be in small ways, as partners to existing organizations. They may also want to create a stablecoin of their own. It's in the best interests of the American public for legal protections regarding cryptocurrency to be strengthened and for banks to be cautious. All the computing power needed is bad for the environment, at least until we switch to a more eco-friendly cryptocurrency. In the meantime, until banking regulators speak up, we're unlikely to see much change in crypto banking. Do you think the federal government should give us tax breaks to improve our homes? Definitely Only for certain upgrades Let each state decide instead No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Sign in to access your portfolio
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
