DOE's Own Lawyers Admit Grant Cuts Targeted Blue States, Democrats Say Wright Lied About It to Congress

House Democrats are asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Energy Secretary Chris Wright lied to Congress about why the Trump administration canceled billions in clean energy grants last fall.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California and Rep. Gabe Amo of Rhode Island sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, according to the LA Times, which obtained the letter dated Tuesday. Lofgren is the ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee. Amo holds the same role on its Environment Subcommittee.

The dispute centers on a June 10 hearing. Wright testified that the Energy Department's decision to terminate nearly 300 grants worth roughly $7.5 to $7.6 billion had nothing to do with politics. According to the House Science Committee Democrats, Wright told the panel "no decisions, no decisions were made on politics," and said the cuts "weren't" based on how states voted in 2024.

Democrats say that claim is false. In a separate federal lawsuit over the same terminations, DOE's Principal Deputy General Counsel stipulated in court that the October grant cuts were "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." The filing reportedly also states the terminations weren't based on "any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor."

All 16 states that lost funding voted against Trump in 2024, according to the LA Times. Those states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, per a list cited by House Appropriations Democrats that traces back to an October 1, 2025 social media post from OMB Director Russ Vought.

Lofgren and Amo argue that the gap between Wright's sworn testimony and DOE's own court filing amounts to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, the federal law barring false statements to Congress. "The facts of the situation are clear and undeniable," they wrote, according to both the House Science Committee release and the LA Times.

The Energy Department disputes that characterization entirely. "The Secretary's statements in his testimony are correct," agency officials said in a statement to the LA Times. "None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations." A representative for House Science Committee Republicans did not respond to the LA Times' request for comment.

DOE's lawyers in litigation said one thing, and Wright told Congress another. Whether that's a deliberate lie or a legal team hedging its position to survive a lawsuit is unclear. Court stipulations are often narrowly worded to concede the minimum necessary to move litigation forward, and a stipulation is not automatically the same as an admission of political motive by the Secretary personally. Wright's defenders would reasonably argue that a DOJ-referral over sworn testimony demands more than an apparent contradiction between litigation strategy and hearing-room language, especially when no perjury charge has actually been filed.

The specific wording in the DOE stipulation presents a direct challenge to this defense. Saying the cuts were "based solely" on whether a state was blue or non-blue, and explicitly ruling out programmatic or cost-based justifications, is about as direct a concession as a government defendant can make in court. If that stipulation is accurate, Wright's June claim that "no decisions were made on politics" does not hold up.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, including Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, have called the terminations "an astounding admission that the President and his team corruptly abused their power." That's a political characterization, not a legal finding. No court has ruled that the administration engaged in corruption, though Kaptur and Murray say several courts have already ruled against the grant terminations themselves on other grounds.

No investigation has been announced by the Justice Department. No charges have been filed against Wright. The referral from Lofgren and Amo is a request, not a legal proceeding, and DOJ under an administration Wright serves in has no obligation to act on a request from the minority party in Congress.

The unresolved question is whether DOJ opens any inquiry at all, and whether the underlying lawsuit over the grant terminations produces further discovery that either confirms or complicates the stipulation Democrats are relying on. Wright has not personally responded to the specific perjury allegation on the record beyond the department's blanket denial.