Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) blasted the Biden administration over a $2 billion grant awarded to Power Forward Communities — a newly formed nonprofit coalition that included an organization linked to Stacey Abrams. Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy described the funding as a reckless waste of taxpayer dollars — questioning why an untested group with little financial history was chosen for such a massive payout.
Kennedy outlined how Power Forward Communities — which was formed in 2023 — received the funding through the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the Inflation Reduction Act. According to its tax filings, the organization had no prior achievements and just $100 in total assets before securing the grant. One of the key players in the coalition was Rewiring America, where Abrams served as senior counsel.
The Louisiana senator raised alarms over the process — noting that the Biden administration required the group to spend the money within 21 days but gave it 90 days to complete a course on how to manage finances. He questioned how a coalition with no history of handling large-scale projects was expected to effectively distribute billions in taxpayer funds.
Kennedy also pointed to Abrams’ history — highlighting past remarks she made that stirred controversy — including her claim that a baby’s heartbeat is a “manufactured sound” and her assertion that abortion could help address inflation. He suggested that Abrams’ high-profile status in Democratic circles may have played a role in securing the funding — despite more experienced organizations being overlooked.
The funds were designated for energy efficiency projects — such as replacing gas stoves and installing heat pumps — but Kennedy cast doubt on whether Power Forward was qualified to oversee the initiative. He argued that the approval of the grant without proper oversight raises serious concerns about financial mismanagement within the Biden administration.
Republicans in Congress are now calling for a full review of the grant’s approval process — questioning whether political favoritism influenced the decision to award $2 billion to a newly formed nonprofit with no track record of handling such funds.
