A quiet flow of taxpayer money, exceeding $5 million, landed in the coffers of Rewiring America, a climate activist organization with close ties to a prominent political figure. This funding occurred during the Biden administration, before a controversial grant was ultimately halted.
The revelation, uncovered through a review of tax documents, directly challenges public statements made by Stacey Abrams regarding her involvement in securing the substantial payout from the Environmental Protection Agency. Claims of a minimal or nonexistent role now face intense scrutiny.
Former President Trump publicly identified Abrams as a key player in a $2 billion deal between left-leaning nonprofits and the EPA. This assertion was met with swift resistance and a wave of “fact-checking” from major media outlets.
The Washington Post, among others, characterized Trump’s claims as “vastly overblown,” dismissing Abrams’ influence on the green-energy initiative. However, evidence suggests a far more central role than acknowledged.
Abrams, alongside Ari Matusiak, CEO of Rewiring America, actively spearheaded the effort to win the massive grant. Matusiak openly admitted to helping “put together” the Power Forward Communities coalition responsible for the successful application.
Furthermore, Matusiak revealed his involvement in drafting the 2022 Biden legislation that established the $27 billion green fund, the very source of the funds Rewiring America and its coalition later accessed.
Despite reports claiming Abrams had severed ties with Rewiring America, her own website indicated she continued to serve as a senior advisor and consultant for the nonprofit. This discrepancy further fueled questions about her ongoing involvement.
A detailed timeline, constructed from public records, illustrates how Abrams’ and Matusiak’s paths converged, ultimately leading to the securing of the multi-billion dollar grant from the Biden administration. The connections are undeniable.
The evidence paints a picture of active participation, contradicting initial assertions and raising questions about transparency surrounding the allocation of federal funds to climate initiatives.
