Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

[Fantine]

Unlike most of you, I think the real "crimes" are trying to prevent already awarded money for a worthy, earth-saving cause from being distributed.
That being said, I have relevant, real life information.
Our state received a $95 million grant for green energy projects. Our city's share was $15 million. The grant specified that the funds needed to be used in low income zones. For example, the EV charging stations on government property were located downtown and in the library lots within the boundaries. Some money was going to a HUD housing project.
There is a Christian nationalist political group in town who was agitating the City Board to refuse the money! To give it back! TBT it would probably be distributed among the other cities. "We should be allowed to use it to repair the sewer system," they complained (because sewer rates have increased.)
My climate lobby rightly argued that refusing $15 million because it provided green energy to "the poor" would hurt the city and hamper our reputation, potentially slowing the economic boom we are experiencing.
I spent several hours at meetings and contacting board members to prevent the money from being returned because green energy focused on poor neighborhoods was bad!
Fortunately, common sense prevailed. We kept the money.
The voices against green energy, especially for those who need it most--imagine--lost.
I hope my real life post shedding light on the grant's focus on low-income areas doesn't reinforce negative stereotypes about the South. We kept the $15 million. The good guys won.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hmm.... I knew there was more to this story. I just don't trust the left wing media anymore to provide me with rhe entire story.

Increasingly, since the 90's, NGOs (referring specifically to the ones that get entrusted with government money allocation and distribution rather than relying on private funding) have exploded in prevalence. The highest concentration of them is left-leaning, though there are a few right-leaning ones as well.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with public/private partnerships on certain projects (there are certainly things the private sector can accomplish much better), the way they get used these days, borders on political shenanigans.

I touched on it before, but many of them really do operate with the purpose of "even if democrats lose, they still win" and it becomes a sneaky way to direct government money towards things that that would otherwise get rejected by voters, or face legislative or judicial roadblocks if attempted to be funded directly.


Congress sets budgets at a high level in terms of the "$X amount goes towards this Department/Agency", but it's the federal departments and agencies that handle the distribution.

So, in essence, congress dictates "how much", and the federal departments dictate "who it goes to"

In another thread, I touched on how, in the federal departments and agencies, it's anywhere from 70-90% Democrats. (with the department of defense being the only one where it's a somewhat even split)

That's where the government-funded NGOs come into play.

There's something of a revolving door from congress (or failed candidacy attempts) to leadership positions or advisor roles in a lot of these NGOs. And while people will put the focus on the reputable ones with name recognition and an established longtime track record, that do good work that most people like (that's why people are specifically mentioning habitat for humanity in here), the reality, there's over 300,000 of them in the US that rely heavily (or exclusively) on government money from one of the federal agencies. And some of them are relatively new upstarts with no track record whatsoever, that are simply there to act as the "bag man" to get money from US government over to a specific agenda/cause, that would otherwise face challenges or public pushback if done directly.

The do this by simply adding a bullet point to the bottom their mission statement that loosely ties in with a legitimate

That's how you end up with a Virginia-based LGBTQ+ activism groups (whose main focus is LGBTQ networking/connecting) like this one receiving $1.8 million dollars... they add "and raising awareness for safe sex practices" and boom, they get an NIH grant.

Ironically enough, that one program/networking group they have currently have listed that could technically be viewed as NIH-related is labelled as "On Hiatus".

However, their weekly "Ace+Aro+ affirming space" is still up and running as are their "workplace pronoun education" seminars.


And how the "game is played" is typically where, when called out for this kind of stuff and demanding some cutbacks to funding... since the money that ends up here to host a Bi/Pan+ social gatherings and "LGBTQ Youth Group", is all part of the same funding pool that also gets sent to Children's Cancer Research hospitals, the disingenuous rebuttal is "Well, I guess you just don't care about kids with cancer"


Likewise, that's how you end up with the example I mentioned earlier, the organization Inclusiv, whose primary focus is on advocacy for inclusive lending practices, getting an EPA grant, because they add the "and do so in a way that's environmentally sustainable" to the bottom of their mission statement, and just like, our environmental funding is being influence banking & and credit union policies.

 

[Larniavc]

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

The Trump administration is targeting climate organizations that received a Biden-era grant.

newrepublic.com

The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration.​

​

Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”​

​

“The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. That is, the Trump administration wants to criminalize work on climate science and impacts,” the @capitolhunters account wrote Wednesday on X. “An incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.“​

​

The Appalachian Community Capital Corporation, the Coalition for Green Capital, and the DC Green Bank are just some of the nonprofits being targeted.​

​

1. Redefine "fraud" to mean things convicted felon Trump doesn't like
2. Retroactively apply this new definition to completely legal and normal government relationships with the private sector, i.e. grants and funding
3. Label all "violations" of new definitional application as criminal activities
4. Use that as justification for opening criminal investigations by the FBI into newly defined "criminal organizations" such as...

*checks notes*

Habitat for Humanity

I confidently expect Trump to sue certain religious institutions for fraud.

Only certain one’s mind.

 

[Larniavc]

I suspect there is more to this story. Its not complete. Much like a lot of left wing stories these days.

Agreed. The money will be being channeled into something that benefits Trump.

 

[Fantine]

I think my story is illustrative. Biden's climate grants were primarily targeted to areas of greatest need.
Saving the earth! Helping the poor!
Obviously a socialist plot that should be stopped, just like the Christian Nationalists in our community tried to refuse the money. Better to get nothing than save the earth and help the poor. SMH.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Unlike most of you, I think the real "crimes" are trying to prevent already awarded money for a worthy, earth-saving cause from being distributed.
That being said, I have relevant, real life information.

How does entrusting an NGO (whose primary focus has been promotion of inclusive lending and banking practices, and advocacy for small business loans and increased homeownership for minority communities) with $1.8 billion dollars to manage ecological grant distribution from the EPA qualify as "earth-saving"?

Was there no other, more well qualified, organization that could've been the steward of those funds?

Keeping in mind:
EPA's annual enacted grant budgets have been as follows:

Fiscal Year	Enacted Budget
FY 2024	$9,158,894,000
FY 2023	$10,135,433,000
FY 2022	$9,559,485,000
FY 2021	$9,237,153,000
FY 2020	$9,057,401,000

So, that amount awarded to them was no small drop in the bucket. That was a substantial portion of the EPA grant budget.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Increasingly, since the 90's, NGOs (referring specifically to the ones that get entrusted with government money allocation and distribution rather than relying on private funding) have exploded in prevalence. The highest concentration of them is left-leaning, though there are a few right-leaning ones as well.

Thank neo-liberalism. Governments have gradually withdrawn from providing social services and encouraged private agencies to take up the gap. If they'd stuck with keeping these in house, they'd have more control over the funds. Mind you, they'd also have to be more accountable to voters for how they're used, which governments don't like.

 

[rjs330]

Increasingly, since the 90's, NGOs (referring specifically to the ones that get entrusted with government money allocation and distribution rather than relying on private funding) have exploded in prevalence. The highest concentration of them is left-leaning, though there are a few right-leaning ones as well.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with public/private partnerships on certain projects (there are certainly things the private sector can accomplish much better), the way they get used these days, borders on political shenanigans.

I touched on it before, but many of them really do operate with the purpose of "even if democrats lose, they still win" and it becomes a sneaky way to direct government money towards things that that would otherwise get rejected by voters, or face legislative or judicial roadblocks if attempted to be funded directly.


Congress sets budgets at a high level in terms of the "$X amount goes towards this Department/Agency", but it's the federal departments and agencies that handle the distribution.

So, in essence, congress dictates "how much", and the federal departments dictate "who it goes to"

In another thread, I touched on how, in the federal departments and agencies, it's anywhere from 70-90% Democrats. (with the department of defense being the only one where it's a somewhat even split)

That's where the government-funded NGOs come into play.

There's something of a revolving door from congress (or failed candidacy attempts) to leadership positions or advisor roles in a lot of these NGOs. And while people will put the focus on the reputable ones with name recognition and an established longtime track record, that do good work that most people like (that's why people are specifically mentioning habitat for humanity in here), the reality, there's over 300,000 of them in the US that rely heavily (or exclusively) on government money from one of the federal agencies. And some of them are relatively new upstarts with no track record whatsoever, that are simply there to act as the "bag man" to get money from US government over to a specific agenda/cause, that would otherwise face challenges or public pushback if done directly.

The do this by simply adding a bullet point to the bottom their mission statement that loosely ties in with a legitimate

That's how you end up with a Virginia-based LGBTQ+ activism groups (whose main focus is LGBTQ networking/connecting) like this one receiving $1.8 million dollars... they add "and raising awareness for safe sex practices" and boom, they get an NIH grant.

Ironically enough, that one program/networking group they have currently have listed that could technically be viewed as NIH-related is labelled as "On Hiatus".

View attachment 362256

However, their weekly "Ace+Aro+ affirming space" is still up and running as are their "workplace pronoun education" seminars.


And how the "game is played" is typically where, when called out for this kind of stuff and demanding some cutbacks to funding... since the money that ends up here to host a Bi/Pan+ social gatherings and "LGBTQ Youth Group", is all part of the same funding pool that also gets sent to Children's Cancer Research hospitals, the disingenuous rebuttal is "Well, I guess you just don't care about kids with cancer"


Likewise, that's how you end up with the example I mentioned earlier, the organization Inclusiv, whose primary focus is on advocacy for inclusive lending practices, getting an EPA grant, because they add the "and do so in a way that's environmentally sustainable" to the bottom of their mission statement, and just like, our environmental funding is being influence banking & and credit union policies.

I have mentioned things like this to others in this board. But some either can't or don't want to get it.

Yes congress assigns money to the executive branch for certain things like foreign aid. But they do not specify rhe exact amount that goes to each group or even what groups or cause it has to go for. Just because Congress gives out 50 billion to house immigrants it doesn't mean that the money has to go to certain cities or certain hotels or certain housing. The executive decides where, how much and to whom it goes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thank neo-liberalism. Governments have gradually withdrawn from providing social services and encouraged private agencies to take up the gap. If they'd stuck with keeping these in house, they'd have more control over the funds. Mind you, they'd also have to be more accountable to voters for how they're used, which governments don't like.

...but to hedge that a bit, it's also fair to point out that government is one of those entities where "they don't know what they don't know", and the reason they outsourced some of that stuff to the private sector is because specialized focus that you find the private sector often exceeds the capabilities of government, which is focused on a bunch of different things at once.

For instance, a professional roofing company that does roofs all day, every day, and nothing but roofs, it going to know more about roofing (the best way to do things, the "gotchas", etc...) than a congressional housing subcommittee who operates at the 10,000ft view and has 20 other things on their plate to review.

I think neoliberalism is okay if used properly and not used for "advancing one's own personal agenda".

Government is one entity, and no one entity is going to be the best at everything...the old saying about "jack of all trades, king of none"

But what we see currently isn't even remotely an attempt to find the best stewards of money in term of accomplishing meaningful tasks.

When the Department of NIH is handing over millions of dollars to, what equates to, an LGBTQ social club because they just so happen to keep a bowl of condoms at the front desk people can grab, and have 5 or 6 dusty old pamphlets about the risks of unprotected sex on the counter...that's really a bastardization of the concept of public-private partnerships that were envisioned. That's just some government employees with an ideological leaning handing out money to go to their ally groups.