Partisan considerations played a role in decisions to cut federal energy grants during a government shutdown, the Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing this week, a move that legal experts say marks a notable shift from longstanding norms governing federal agency conduct, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Government lawyers also wrote in the court filing that "consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible, including because it can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy considerations."
The filing marked the first time the government had acknowledged in the court documents that politics was a factor, according to the Post.
Legal experts said the administration's statement represents a significant departure from legal norms under which agencies have avoided considering partisanship in such cases.
"It really undermines the idea that you're passing neutral laws that you know are supposed to apply equally to everybody," Dan Farber, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley told the Post. "I find it really startling they would make that concession."
It could also increase the likelihood that federal lawyers might make similar arguments in legal challenges to other unilateral cuts implemented by the administration affecting blue cities and states.
Last month, a coalition of Minnesota clean energy groups and the city of St. Paul sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Energy Department declared it was cutting 321 grants totaling about $7.5 billion — including projects to stimulate the hydrogen industry in California, upgrade the electricity grid serving Indigenous communities in New Mexico, and generate new energy primarily from wind and solar in Minnesota.
The lawsuit argues that cuts to funding in Minnesota were entirely politically motivated.
Justice Department attorneys did not agree that the decision was solely political, instead arguing that politics was one factor among others.
The groups also alleged that the administration violated their First Amendment rights by targeting a state that voted for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
The government has previously been careful to avoid citing political considerations in court cases involving its decision-making. In an earlier filing in the same St. Paul case, government lawyers wrote that the terminations were "part of a months-long review process by DOE, and the grant terminations made as part of this review process include entities located in both 'Red States' and 'Blue States' alike."
Brian Freeman ✉
Brian Freeman, a Newsmax writer based in Israel, has more than three decades writing and editing about culture and politics for newspapers, online and television.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.