Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. In Case You Missed It: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” Fox News Alec Schemmel April 11, 2025 Republicans in Congress are launching a probe into a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent billions in funding to climate groups tied to Democrats and former President Joe Biden’s allies. GOP leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to the eight nonprofits awarded grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), seeking answers to ensure the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed proper ethics and conflict of interest protocols in distributing the funds. In February, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back, citing concerns over a lack of oversight related to how the money was being disbursed. In the announcement, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over. It was also revealed that $2 billion from GGRF went to a Stacy Abrams-linked group, Power Forward Communities, which had not been established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process. Meanwhile, during Power Forward’s first few months of operations – prior to receiving the funding – the group reported just $100 in revenue. Climate United, another group that received the most money from the GGRF, roughly $7 billion, currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president’s term. The same group is also run by a CEO with ties to the Obama administration and a board member who was among those invited to Biden’s signing ceremony for his multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021.  Several GGRF grant recipients have ties to Democrats and Biden advisors, and some were reportedly founded shortly before or after the Biden administration announced the program. Meanwhile, these groups, according to Zeldin, had sole discretion on how to use the funds. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., alongside fellow committee members Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that their investigation into the GGRF recipients will be “key” to understanding whether these funds were allocated “fairly and impartially to qualified applicants,” while also helping to determine the manner in which the money has been used. “The Committee has had concerns about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program since its creation—including concerns about the program’s unusual structure, a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients, and the recipients’ ability to manage the large influx of federal dollars they received from the EPA,” the lawmakers said in their statement. “A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing that examined these concerns coupled with the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA heightened the Committee’s concerns and raised additional questions about certain Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients.”  Several of the groups that were recipients of GGRF money sued the Trump administration in March over its attempts to rake back the funds.  Subsequently, Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order preventing the EPA from freezing $14 billion in GGRF funds awarded to three of the climate groups.  Background: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.   Letters:  National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. “The Committee has had concerns about the GGRF program—including the program’s unusual structure and a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients. A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing examined these issues and the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA, which raised additional questions about certain GGRF recipients.” said Chairmen Guthrie, Palmer, and Griffith. “ This investigation is key to evaluating whether these funds were awarded fairly and impartially to qualified applicants and determining how the federal funds are being used.” Background:  The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.    Letters: National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital Read the story here . ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, released the following statement after Mark Meador was confirmed by the Senate to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission: “In the last administration, the FTC abandoned its rich bipartisan tradition and historical mission, in favor of a radical agenda and partisan mismanagement. The Commission needs to return to protecting Americans from bad actors and preserving competition in the marketplace,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Bilirakis. “We trust that Commissioner Meador, along with Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak, are capable of restoring America’s trust in this institution and returning the Commission to its former position as the country’s premier consumer protection agency focusing on transparency and accountability.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Yesterday, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, penned a letter to Secretary Jennifer Granholm questioning the Department of Energy’s involvement in the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to prevent new offshore oil and gas production, leading to higher prices for consumers and harming U.S. energy security. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “Closing off swaths of U.S. offshore areas to energy production, as the Biden-Harris Administration reportedly intends to do, will lead to higher energy prices for American families, the loss of American jobs, and greatly diminish our country’s energy security. As the Secretary of Energy, you have an obligation to weigh in on this matter and insist on a full review of the energy security and economic impacts before any decisions are finalized. “The United States stands at an energy crossroads, facing mounting global security threats and soaring demand for power. Instead of leading the world in energy production, we’ve allowed misguided “green” policies to hamstring our potential. It’s time to unleash American energy dominance again—the federal government must become an ally, not an obstacle, to our nation’s energy security. We look forward to your prompt response to this request, no later than January 10, 2025.” Read the story  here . BACKGROUND: This morning, the Biden Administration announced that more than 625 million square miles of coastline would be off-limits for energy production. Republican Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have continuously called on the Biden-Harris Administration to end its attack on American energy production before leaving office on January 20th. The letter requests an explanation of the DOE’s involvement in the decision and whether the White House or the Department of Interior consulted with the DOE about the plans to close off access to offshore resources. Any decision to shut down access to significant American energy resources impacts U.S. energy policy and should be reviewed by the DOE. The Biden Administration’s energy policies have continued to create major harm to America’s energy production and workforce. A unilateral ban on energy production in large swaths of the U.S. coastline will have lasting impacts on American energy production and security.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

House Republicans scrutinize government grant funding recipients that fail to protect individuals from antisemitism Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to J. David Gladstone Institutes President Dr. Deepak Srivastava, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) and House Committee on Education and the Workforce (E&W) have requested information about ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at Gladstone and its leadership’s insufficient response to these acts. The letter is signed by E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&C Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), E&W Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and E&W Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT).  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “The Gladstone Institutes, an independent biomedical research organization, claims that it takes an active stance against serious issues like discrimination and harassment and aims to ‘ensure all community members at Gladstone feel included’ and that the Institutes will aim to ‘implement accountability measures and reinforce Gladstone’s commitment to having an environment free of harassment.’ However, these values do not seem to be reflected in the actions of leadership in response to recent concerns of antisemitic harassment and discrimination within the Institutes.” [...] “The reports of antisemitic harassment at Gladstone coupled with the inadequate response by leadership is concerning to the Committees. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all trainees, faculty, and staff is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of Gladstone.” “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of Gladstone or failure to respond appropriately to and prevent harassment and discrimination, no matter the cause, may be grounds to withhold federal funds from the university. Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of recipients of federal funds when blatant and ongoing Title VI violations appear to be happening. If Congress determines an institution of higher education/research is blatantly ignoring its legal responsibilities, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated.” BACKGROUND ON TAXPAYER FUNDING: Gladstone received more than $41 million in funding from the NIH in Fiscal Year 2023, not including potential taxpayer funding that individual faculty may have received through their affiliation with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) or any other affiliated universities.   According to the NIH’s Grant Policy Statement, any institution receiving federal funds must assure work environments are free of discriminatory harassment and are safe and conducive to high-quality work.  Institutions receiving federal taxpayer financial assistance—such as NIH grants—are prohibited from discriminating based on a variety of categories, including national origin.   These laws also protect members of the institution who are or are perceived to be members of a group with shared ancestry, such as students/trainees of Jewish heritage. BACKGROUND ON INSTANCES OF ANTISEMITISM : Two days after the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, a graduate student working in a lab within Gladstone sent an antisemitic email to all Gladstone faculty, trainees, and staff falsely stating that the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was “the resistance in Gaza launch[ing] a surprise attack against Israel, taking occupation soldiers hostage, taking over Israeli military vehicles, and gain[ing] control over illegal Israeli settlements.”  The email goes on to claim that all casualties resulting from Palestinian actions are the responsibility of Israel.  Immediately following this mass email, members of the Gladstone faculty began contacting the Gladstone Institutes’ President and other leadership, appalled by the language of the email, concerned for their safety and worried that the email could be seen as an incitement to violence.  Jewish members of the Institutes also expressed their deep, personal pain following the Hamas attack, as some members had family or friends reported killed or missing directly after the attack.  These fears—including fears of being attacked in the lab by the author of this cruel and antagonistic email—were shared directly with President Srivastava.  Despite this, Gladstone leadership did not issue a public statement or position against antisemitism to quell fears of Jewish faculty and trainees.  In May 2024, the Center for Combatting Antisemitism sent President Srivastava a letter requesting administrative action to address the hostile environment and disparate treatment of Jewish members at Gladstone.  This letter noted that Gladstone refused to acknowledge Jewish American Heritage Month, Passover, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, despite sending official celebratory emails and holding events for other religious, ethnic, or national holidays, including Black History Month, International Women’s Day, and Ramadan.  The Center followed up with Gladstone several times, but never received a response.  Jewish faculty and trainees have conveyed to leadership within Gladstone instances of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, which faculty and trainees believe were not taken seriously, making some feel uneasy about speaking out.  For example, per a publicly available Fair Employment and Housing Act complaint to the California Civil Rights Division, a Jewish faculty member openly discussed fellow faculty using racial stereotypes, including comments about a “Jewish nose.”  When these comments were brought to human resources, no investigation occurred.  Instead, the complainant was subsequently targeted with an investigation ultimately deemed to be unwarranted.  Then, following the complainant’s post-October 7th advocacy on behalf of Jewish faculty and trainees, the complainant was threatened repeatedly with career-ending termination, allegedly in an attempt to extort a resignation.  When the threats did not have their desired effect, Gladstone placed the complainant on administrative leave and removed the complainant’s electronic access to email and files but also physical access to the complainant’s lab, removing all ability to conduct work on an NIH-funded grant.  Gladstone ultimately paid an undisclosed sum to settle the matter and avoid litigation.  To elevate concerns regarding widespread, ongoing discrimination, Jewish faculty and trainees requested permission to bring in a speaker related to antisemitism.  Other minority groups had previously been given permission to bring in similar anti-racism speakers.  However, while leadership stated it would look into the idea, ultimately no speaker was brought, and no program was launched regarding antisemitism. BACKGROUND ON AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION : Gladstone Institutes is affiliated with other institutions under congressional investigation.  For example, Gladstone is an affiliate of the UCSF, which is undergoing congressional investigation for reports of antisemitism within the university, medical school, and medical centers.  Most of Gladstone’s principal investigators are also faculty at UCSF, and the Institutes provide research positions and opportunities for graduate students from UCSF.  Moreover, there is a joint institute—the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology—further linking the two institutions.  Gladstone is also affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, both of which are also under investigation for concerns related to antisemitism. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.