A recent investigation by government watchdog OpenTheBooks reveals that the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has dramatically reduced taxpayer-funded attorney fee payouts to environmental nonprofit organizations. According to the report published April 1, 2026, payments in 2025 plummeted to just over $510,000—the lowest level since tracking began in 2013.
This sharp decline represents a significant shift in how the EPA handles litigation under key environmental statutes. The data specifically tracks attorney fees awarded under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act, which collectively account for the vast majority of environmental litigation against federal agencies.
The $510,000 figure stands in stark contrast to recent years. During the Biden administration, annual payouts ranged between $1.7 and $3.3 million, while the Obama administration distributed $5.7 million in such fees. The practice, often referred to as "sue-and-settle," involves environmental organizations filing lawsuits against federal agencies, then negotiating settlements that include taxpayer-funded attorney fee awards—effectively creating a revenue stream for activist groups while bypassing normal regulatory processes.
The report suggests that Zeldin has fulfilled earlier commitments to curtail these arrangements. During President Trump's first term, similar efforts reduced payouts to approximately $3.6 million total across four years, though amounts gradually increased after an initial drop in 2017. The Biden administration subsequently reversed many restrictions and expanded the practice—until the recent reversal under the current administration.
Despite this progress in reducing payouts, the report highlights an ongoing transparency concern: taxpayers still cannot fully track or review the details of these settlements. The agreements often occur through consent decrees negotiated behind closed doors, allowing environmental groups to effectively shape policy without congressional oversight or public input.
Critics of the sue-and-settle practice argue it creates a perverse incentive structure where nonprofits can fund their operations through litigation rather than member donations, while supporters maintain these lawsuits serve as necessary enforcement mechanisms when agencies fail to meet statutory deadlines or obligations.
The reduction in payouts aligns with broader efforts by the current EPA leadership to reduce what it views as regulatory capture by activist organizations. A spokesperson for Administrator Zeldin emphasized that outside groups should not dictate the agency's agenda, signaling a philosophical departure from approaches that accommodated frequent litigation-driven settlements.
This development represents a significant victory for fiscal conservatives who have long criticized the sue-and-settle arrangement as an improper use of taxpayer resources and a circumvention of democratic processes. However, environmental advocates contend that reduced litigation—and the funding mechanisms that support it—may result in diminished enforcement of environmental protections.
The 2025 data suggests a fundamental restructuring of how the EPA approaches litigation may be underway, with potential long-term implications for environmental policy development and enforcement in the United States.
