The $2 billion grant awarded to Power Forward Communities, a nonprofit linked to Stacey Abrams, has ignited controversy over federal spending and political favoritism. Critics question the Biden administration’s decision to fund a newly formed organization with minimal financial history, raising concerns about oversight and accountability.
Power Forward Communities, established in October 2023, reported only $100 in revenue before receiving the substantial grant in April 2024. The funding, part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, aimed to support climate initiatives in low-income communities. However, the organization’s rapid ascent to managing billions has drawn scrutiny.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin criticized the grant, stating, “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion.” He further questioned the organization’s preparedness, noting they were required to complete a budget development training within 90 days of receiving the funds.
Stacey Abrams’ involvement with Power Forward Communities stems from her role as senior counsel at Rewiring America, a key partner in the coalition. While Abrams did not directly receive funds, her association with the group has fueled allegations of political favoritism. Zeldin remarked, “If you care about clean air, land, and water… then why aren’t you spending a dollar actually remediating that issue instead of paying off your friend?”
The grant’s allocation process has also come under fire. The funds were placed in Citibank accounts, limiting federal oversight. Zeldin expressed concern over this arrangement, emphasizing the need for transparency in handling taxpayer money. “I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said.
In response to the controversy, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) accused Republicans of targeting Abrams due to her political aspirations, suggesting the scrutiny aims to “keep a strong black woman down.” However, critics argue that the issue centers on fiscal responsibility and proper vetting of grant recipients, regardless of political affiliations.
