Ross says the administration's payments do not "meet the statutory requirements governing use of the Judgment Fund"
U.S. Representative, North Carolina
“The use of congressionally appropriated funds, potentially in violation of the Antideficiency Act, to pay private companies to cancel clean energy projects on the condition that they invest in fossil fuel ventures appears to be quid pro quo. ... You have furnished these reimbursements through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Judgment Fund, which was created to pay valid judgement and settlements where the United States is the defendant. The details of these agreements make clear that your payment structure does not meet the statutory requirements governing use of the Judgment Fund: DOI has identified no final judgment, Attorney General-approved compromise of a referred claim, or money-damages liability that would make this payment eligible for the Judgment Fund under 31 U.S.C. § 1304 or 28 U.S.C. § 2414.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Letter from 15 House Democrats demanding records on the legal basis for the offshore wind settlement payments and asking that further payments be suspended pending review.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Ross's letter followed the TotalEnergies and Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind settlement announcements and cited the Antideficiency Act alongside the Judgment Fund.
After the quotation
Ross and her co-signers asked the recipients to answer 16 questions about the negotiations by June 1, 2026, including whether the administration obtained a written fiscal-law opinion before entering the agreements.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Did the Interior Department's offshore wind lease-cancellation payments comply with the Judgment Fund Act?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to whether the payments complied with the Judgment Fund Act, Ross's letter argues directly that they do not meet the statute's requirements, identifying no final judgment or approved compromise that would make them eligible. That is a direct condemnation of the payment mechanism, not merely the broader cancellation policy.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- U.S. Department of the Interior, Doug Burgum
Did the Interior Department's offshore wind lease-cancellation payments comply with the Judgment Fund Act?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“President Trump is trying to send $111 million to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab.”Read statement
“These illegal backroom deals take money that should have gone toward lowering New Yorkers' bills and hand it to fossil fuel projects in other states, all while our energy demand continues to grow.”Read statement
“They essentially gave the U.S. government an interest-free loan and their money was refunded to them”Read statement