Huffman calls the TotalEnergies settlement "almost certainly unlawful"
U.S. Representative, Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources
“The agreement with TotalEnergies is almost certainly unlawful. DOI and TotalEnergies refer to a "settlement," indicating the administration may fund this payout through the Judgment Fund.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Letter from the ranking members of the House Natural Resources and Judiciary committees questioning the legal basis for the TotalEnergies settlement.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The letter followed Interior's March 23, 2026 announcement that it would pay TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to cancel its offshore wind leases.
After the quotation
Huffman and Raskin asked Interior and the Justice Department to answer eight questions, including which accounts the $928 million would be drawn from, by April 20, 2026.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: The settlement payments to offshore wind developers are not lawful compromise settlements of actual or imminent litigation and are a type of payment otherwise provided for by law under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, making them unavailable from the Judgment Fund under 31 U.S.C. 1304.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Huffman directly labels the settlement unlawful and links its "settlement" framing to a likely Judgment Fund funding source he disputes as improper, a clear condemnation of the payment's legal basis.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- TotalEnergies, 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
“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.”Read statement