Trump Says His Budget Proposal Will End the 'Green New Scam'
The budget proposal calls for gutting federal energy funding and environmental justice initiatives.

President Donald Trump released his budget proposal Friday, including $163 billion in nondefense spending cuts (a 22 percent reduction) that will be achieved "by reducing or eliminating programs found to be woke and weaponized against ordinary working Americans, wasteful, or best left to the States and localities to provide," according to a White House fact sheet. Defense spending, meanwhile, will receive a 13 percent bump and the Department of Homeland Security will see its budget jump by 65 percent, presumably to enact the president's disastrous immigration policies.
Like other presidential budget requests before it, Trump's is mostly a messaging document that bears little resemblance to a budget and is unlikely to be fully enacted. Still, a key theme of the proposal is ending funding for what Trump has called "the Green New Scam."
The budget proposal takes aim at several offices within the Energy Department and calls for $15 billion of cuts from the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Specifically, the budget blueprint cancels the Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, a $2.1 billion program designed "to establish and carry out a carbon dioxide transportation infrastructure finance and innovation program." The program is "of so little interest that not a single dollar has been awarded to date," according to the White House.
The U.S. currently has a little more than 5,000 miles worth of pipelines specifically designed to transport carbon dioxide (CO2), which have primarily been used for enhanced oil recovery. The Energy Department estimates that the U.S. will need at least 30,000 miles of these pipelines to transport CO2 from industrial operators to underground storage sites to reach stated greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2050. The current deficiency has less to do with private sector interest—Exxon spent $4.9 billion in 2023 to buy a CO2 pipeline company—and more to do with onerous regulations.
Environmental justice initiatives at the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will see some of the steepest funding reductions under the proposal. While protecting marginalized communities from the impacts of pollution is important, the federal government's environmental justice approach has focused on unrelated social goals. Congressional lawmakers are considering meaningful reforms to the permitting process, which would make it easier to build clean energy facilities and do a better job of protecting these communities than federal programs have.
The proposal also includes cuts to federal funding grants from the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to groups that Trump says "advance the radical climate agenda." Every year, the EPA "awards more than $4 billion in funding for grants and other assistance agreements," according to the agency's website. In the past, funding has gone to the Audubon Society ($156 million in revenue in 2023). NOAA has funded large nonprofits, including Ocean Conservancy ($48.6 million in revenue in 2023). While these groups do good and important work, they need not be financed by taxpayers.
The Trump budget proposal is unlikely to be passed in its entirety, which is good considering the many examples of wasteful spending in it. (Why do taxpayers need to front $500 million for Make America Healthy initiatives that nonprofit groups can pursue?) But Congress should consider halting grants to many other nonprofit groups as well. As the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency have shown, the federal government is too intertwined in our lives. Removing this dependency will be better for the private sector, nonprofits, and taxpayers in the long run.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is good news.
Mike Johnson will fuck it up.
Nope, dude is batting near 1.000 with a razor thin margin.
The Senate, however…
MAGAs are dumbasses who just want to destroy everything. Climate change is real, is is affecting us now, and zero-carbon energy sources are needed.
The best zero-carbon energy is nuclear. Try to sell that to the greenies.
I am a greenie and I support nuclear power. New York City is condemned for the next two generations to produce almost all its electricity by burning fossil fuels because "activists" convinced the government to force the closure of the two nuclear power plants in Westchester County. There has NEVER been a confirmed death from any civilian nuclear power plant in the US -- not even at Three Mile Island. But air pollution from burning fossil fuels kill (mostly from coal, which Trump wants to prop up).
Hear , hear !
And with all your green energy plans China and India have been producing more and more carbon lol.
Harvard grad Charlie hall everyone!
What green energy plans ? I've been advocating nuclear energy as the best way to win energy abundance without the risks of solar radiative forcing from CO2.
Everyone here concedes that you're oblivious to fact checking and unable to parse science, but it's hard to figure out if
"Harvard grad Charlie hall everyone!"
is aimed at RFK Jr. , or Woody Allen?
Who is everyone scam site?
What science do I not know? I cite everything I state unlike you. I have yet to see you oush anything other than false model projections, rejecting actual science.
You can't even figure out what an adjective modifies lol.
God damn clown.
We wait with bated breath to learn who Charlie is , and what
"Harvard grad Charlie hall everyone!" means.
That’s good, but I’d bet most greenies are still against it. If you have data that shows otherwise, please show it.
See for yourself- I've know the principal signatories for decades and coauthored climate physics papers with two:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/189068-climate-scientists-to-green-activists-embrace-nuke-power/
Climate change is real and recognized by all AGW skeptics.
AGW climate change is not proven. When proponents lie as much as they have, the reason is usually because the truth is not on their side. As just one small example, read this article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/02/global-climate-database-fed-with-junk-data-from-raf-airbase-where-helicopters-hover-over-the-thermometer/
Here's a clue: fraudulent data like this makes it impossible to measure climate change. Basing trillions of dollars of spending, and risk blackouts like just happened to Spain and Portugal, on sucg fraudulent data is, well, fraud.
Watts Up With That has been beating the same dead horse for a decade.
Watt's bet the farm on warming being an artifact of putting weather stations in hot spots . The Kochs called his bluff by funding a disinterested study of all the stations all the time- the Berkeley Earth project.
Watts lost bigly , and moved on to touting other Anything But CO2 explanations of the ~1.4º C rise in temperature since 1850 or so.
Here's the latest annual update on the study
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
Stopped touting your scam site, huh? Good for you.
Have you forgotten its name?
No fake website?
I’m afraid the link will really be some dark web shit like Shrike’s child porn.
The truth is a dead horse?
+1. There is no climate change crisis. It’s still colder today than during either the Medieval Optimum or the Roman Warm Period. Let’s be glad we’re in neither the Little Ice Age or the cold, wet times of the early medieval period.
" It’s still colder today than during either the Medieval Optimum or the Roman Warm Period."
Source?
From what I can tell, The Roman Warm Period was a relatively localized event - around 250BC(E) - that was localized to Europe and maybe the North Sea. During that time, from ICE cores, looks like the earth was only 0-.5C warmer than pre-industrial marks.
Medievel optimum was also localized to Europe/North Atlatic.
We are currently about 1.6C warmer and a trajectory to be about 4C warmer by 2100 - which would put sea level at 3ft above current levels (estimate of course).
So... lets cut federal flood insurance... See how the banks respond.
We are currently about 1.6C warmer and a trajectory to be about 4C warmer by 2100 - which would put sea level at 3ft above current levels (estimate of course).
Some lies will never die.
You can just feel the PHD energy coming off this post.
1. the climate is dynamic
2. the climate has always been dynamic
3. the climate will always be dynamic
Terrifying.
common sense 🙂
So the climate changes for no reason whatsoever? Interesting theory. That's going to be a bit hard to prove.
You sound like a Trumper.
The prevailing theory - the only one that is still on the table right now - is that man made CO2 is contributing to a slight, but significant warming of the planet. All the other theories don't match historical data (volcano, sun spots, space aliens etc.)
zero-carbon energy sources are needed.
This is why Molly advocates all the time for nuclear.
Cheap and abundant, zero-emission energy sources don't get us far fewer humans doing subsistence farming, in accordance with Mother Gaia's wishes, Bertram.
Instead, you get raised standards of living across both the developed and developing world, and that leads to even more population growth.
Friends of yours?
INSANE Here’s what you were NEVER TOLD about the Pacific Palisades Fires
Portland, Oregon couple was found at the scene in a fake fire truck, the husband was a convicted arsonist, the wife “is a national weather service wind and fire expert who teaches CLIMATE CHANGE issues”
“There is something very large at play in the Palisades fire. There was a couple from Portland, Oregon, and they drove into the Palisades Fire scene in a decommissioned fire truck. They had emblazoned this fire truck with the name Rolling River Fire Department. — They got into the scene two days in a row before they were stopped and arrested.
Woah. — We do know that they were acting suspiciously in the fire zone on a fake fire truck.
Turns out the woman is a national weather service wind and fire expert who teaches juvenile delinquents climate change issues. They make rap songs called weather slaps. And some of the lyrics go like, wait until you see it all burn.
And her husband, the guy behind the wheel, is a convicted arsonist who burned down country clubs and rich people's houses in a small town in Oregon.
Holy sh*t.
They were eco terrorists. So I am convinced that this is an act of eco terrorism. That's insane to me”
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1918287401103053157
Far too many of these fires are started by firebugs like these. Then the fires are trotted out as examples of a “climate change crisis”. Crisis, my ass. There’s an arsonist crisis.
How does that relate to the article at hand?
Are you suggesting that because these nut cases exist - all climate change is based on these nut cases thoughts?
Keep in mind that there are Trump supporters that insist that in the basement of a pizza shop in DC... that actually doesn't have a basement - Democrats are doing awful things to minors. In fact, one showed up with an semi-automatic rifle to rescue them.
Perhaps we should disarm all Republicans?
You claim to be a physicist. Is the earth greener now than it was 30 years ago? Do plants require less water as carbon increases? What is your view on an emergency carbon or temp level and has that existed in the past?
This is why nobody believes you have a PhD or really any degree.
"Climate change is real, is is affecting us now
No shit. At around the same time Jericho and Damascus were being first built, the sea's worldwide were 300 feet lower and giant ice caps covered North America. When Rome was achieving hegemony they were growing vineyards in Scotland. When Abraham Lincoln was shot the world was in the grip of the coldest period since the Younger Dryas.
Climate changes continually. Nobody doubts this.
What they don't believe is pretending that carbon dioxide, the single most important molecule for all life, is a deadly poison.
"and zero-carbon energy sources are needed."
NO! The movement behind it is dangerous, anti-scientific and psychotic.
Bet Molly can't even cite what gas is most responsible for atmospheric warming.
HO2?
Cow farts? Moose farts? Or baby whale farts?
"At around the same time Jericho and Damascus were being first built, the sea's worldwide were 300 feet lower and giant ice caps covered North America. "
Utter bilge. Sea levels were pretty much the same at that time as today- they were 300 feet lower only during the Glacial Maximum 20,000 years earlier.
"When Rome was achieving hegemony they were growing vineyards in Scotland. " Sounds like Fox climate historian & cabaret singer Mark Steyn bogus screed on the great wines of Greenland.
The wine Romans drank on Hadrian's wall was shipped north from France, not south from Scotland.
For details , and links to sources see The Website That Must Not Be Named:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/search?q=warmer+than+now
"When Abraham Lincoln was shot the world was in the grip of the coldest period since the Younger Dryas."
No they were not. Oxygen Isotope systemics from hundreds of glacial ice cores demonstrate that the Younger Dryas was 2º to 8º C colder than the 19th century depending on locale.
Zero for three. The ignoramus is strong in this one.
There is a measured increase in the global average temperature since about 1820s. So much so that even sun cycles are questioned. We should have been cooling through the 1900s
The increase seems to correspond to the increase in CO2 percentage in the atmosphere.
No other explanation to the increase seems to correspond.
Finally, no one has been able to disprove the causality.
If you have a better theory, please link the scientific research paper.
"...Climate change is real, is is affecting us now, and zero-carbon energy sources are needed..."
And not a single prediction by a climate catastrophist has proven true.
Fuck off and die, watermelon.
Dumb Molly confirms for me the idiocy of climate change. Gore railed for years about the ice cap as the most telling sign of global warming. Well, Molly the clueless :
Antarctic ice has made a surprising rebound in mass, scientists say
By Adriana Diaz
Published May 5, 2025
If the people want green energy, shouldn’t the market provide it, if it’s profitable?
No, because while capitalists are greedy sonsabitches who think of nothing but money, capitalists are also incredibly stupid and wouldn't recognize profit if the government dangled it in front of their faces.
The market can't provide it, period. You need government taking your property via eminent domain in order to build an electric transmission line or a pipeline. Without the government's guns, you are stuck with needing solar panels on every rooftop.
Harvard communist grad Charlie hall everyone!
Yes, nobody would lease land to a power transmission company to put up poles like they do for windmills.
Fuck off, slaver.
"you are stuck with needing solar panels on every rooftop."
LMFAO.....
Isn't that exactly what the environmentalists are after?
I don't know if dumb gets richer than that.
...and that's the proof-in-the-pudding.
It's not even about solar energy.
It's about monopolizing the peoples energy.
THREE ERRORS JERRY. THREE !!!
1) It s' like EVs...subsidized in production, subsidized in buying, competitors besieged by regulations. IN short NO MARKET AT ALL
2) Profitable is usually found to be wrong when all costs are factored in. Take Amazon and plastic wrap : “According to research by YouGov, 85% of Amazon customers in the US reported being concerned about plastic pollution. It’s time for Amazon to step up and commit to a global plastic packaging reduction everywhere it operates — including in the US.”
Oceana shares that the e-commerce industry produced 3.8 billion pounds of plastic packaging waste in 2022, of which protective packaging (including bubble wrap and air pillows) made up 35.4% of the weight. Plastic pouches and bags (including Amazon mailers, envelopes and bubble-lined bags) reportedly comprised more than 1.2 billion pounds of total plastic packaging weight. Shrink films made up 11.9%, and 21% of the total weight were a mix of other plastic products like foams or gel packs.
3) You use the most loose and undefinable non-words "green energy' and "market" and "profitiable" but more basic you are admitting that admitting that right now part of that MUST BE WRONG. EIther the people don't want it....OR.....the market is working as a market and is what it is ....OR.... It isn't profitable.
YOu are actually bypassing the market and asking for Big Government to step in. How is that not the case ????
The U.S. currently has a little more than 5,000 miles worth of pipelines specifically designed to transport carbon dioxide (CO2), which have primarily been used for enhanced oil recovery.
...
The current deficiency has less to do with private sector interest—Exxon spent $4.9 billion in 2023 to buy a CO2 pipeline company—and more to do with onerous regulations.
LOL @ "specifically"
"Hey, this pipeline is full of oil! How did *that* get in there?!"
Chemjeff/sarc/mtrueman take: Oil companies building CO2 pipelines at cost and using them to transport their own product without spending a single dollar of CO2 Transportation Infrastructure earmarks shows just how far reaching and nefariously hidden the big oil subsidy scam really is.
Since WWII, Germany's liberal democracy has held. Now, it's on the brink. The government censors, spies on, and persecutes critics. And, today, it laid the groundwork to ban the nation's most popular political party, the AfD. My exclusive interview with one of its leaders.
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1918345040818307526
AfD is a pro-Nazi party.
Derp!
Can you give a list of which parties should be banned?
Odds are he belongs to Open Societies. Data republican just did a run down with citations on it.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1918329845991510370.html
Basically, like Stalin, democracy solely means what the soros party wants.
Harvard communist Charlie hall!
What class was Charlie Hall?
Was he on the same side as FDR's pal Putzi Hanfstaengl in the Hitler Stalin pact? Take after John Reed? Or are you just gargling as usual?
"AfD is a pro-Nazi party.
HOW IS IT PRO-NAZI, JEFFY!!
Explain your deranged and dishonest smear. What do you claim makes it so?
The BfV said in its decision that the “ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order.”
It cited the “xenophobic, anti-minority, Islamophobic and anti-Muslim statements made by leading party officials.”
Apparently being against broad invasion of a violent culture makes one a nazi.
Pretty amazing they tied being against mass importation of Muslims with ancestry based conception. But they were never honest people.
You see they want to deport the Arabs that are killing the jews. That's how nazis work
Um Ukraine has a pro Nazi government.
Cite?
The Trump budget proposal is unlikely to be passed in its entirety, which is good considering the many examples of wasteful spending in it. (Why do taxpayers need to front $500 million for Make America Healthy initiatives that nonprofit groups can pursue?)
Even after DOGE and USAID fundings, reasons seems to not realize who was funding NGOs.
Why does the government need to spend money supporting public television and radio when most of their funding comes from private donations?
The environment is leftist.
While protecting marginalized communities from the impacts of pollution is important
Behold... libertarianism adapted for modern audiences... BEHOLD!
The Trump budget proposal is unlikely to be passed in its entirety, which is good considering the many examples of wasteful spending in it. (Why do taxpayers need to front $500 million for Make America Healthy initiatives that nonprofit groups can pursue?)
Good god this rag has become a cesspool of agree-to-disagree horseshit.
Nonprofits are frequently corrupt tax evasion and money laundering schemes anyway
Nice Catch.... +10000000.
Leftardism being indoctrinated at Reason.
The ?Green? war on plant-sustenance; CO2.
Yeah. If you can't see the 'scam' in that one I've got a Sarah desert bridge to sell you.
Maybe the plants can build a [WE] Identify-as 'cult' of Gov-Gun Power-mad gangsters and start a ?humanitarian? war against oxygen.
If the plants want to recruit vegetables to their cause, they've come to the right cult.
Can we at least all agree that the Green New Deal is absolutely, 100% a scam?
I mean, can we find some basic common ground there, or do we have to deal with actual retards who think that's a legitimate purpose of government?
You should be grateful that we have to deal with actual retards. Just think how much damage those little fuckers could do if they weren't retarded.
"The budget proposal calls for gutting federal energy funding and environmental justice initiatives."
Sounds good to me and all sane people.
I can't think of a bigger scam than the lies about "climate change."
It ranks right up there with the War on Poverty and all the money the American taxpayers wasted on public education.
All this "green, sustainable energy" crap is nothing but a scam. An absolute scam to pocket the taxpayer's money. Wind generators are destroying offshore ecosystems. Solar energy systems are far too expensive to build and maintain as well as can be easily damaged by weather conditions.
Up here in Norhtern Michigan, near the town of Gaylord, the idiots in Michigan DNR want to cut down 400 acres of trees to build a solar energy plant. That's 400 acres of nice hardwood forest folks.
Can it get any crazier than this? Someone inside the DNR is hoping to retire on the money they plan to steal from the taxpayers. And since DOGE has been exposing the waste, fraud and theft involved in so many government giveaways, this idea was obviously planned to do as much....end up in someone's pockets.
It's all a joke, a very expensive joke on the taxpayers.
There "green new deal" will end up as the "green raw deal."
Long overdue. Defund this nonsense - let the free market handle it.
So Reason jumped on Janet Yellen for her admitted poor direction of the Fed but when she came out (with her climate science expertise) and said 'we need at least $3 Trillion a year to fight climate change' you dropped all your Austrian Economics and Murray Rothbard beliefs and said "totallly true" You are sinking slow enough for you to not notice but you are and it's bullshit like this articlle doin it
"...disastrous immigration policies..."
Actually, I thought they were working-out quite well.