The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently upheld a decision by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Eximbank) to approve a loan for a natural gas project in Mozambique. The ruling affects environmental groups, local communities in Mozambique, and U.S. taxpayers, as it allows the disbursement of up to $5 billion in federal funds despite concerns over environmental and social impacts.
The case, Friends of the Earth U.S. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States (Docket No. 25-5387), centered around a preliminary injunction sought by Friends of the Earth U.S. and Justiça Ambiental, two organizations advocating for environmental protection and community rights. They argued that the Eximbank failed to properly assess the environmental and social impacts of the Mozambique Liquefied Natural Gas Project, which has faced significant challenges, including violent insurgent attacks in the region.
The dispute began when Eximbank approved a loan to finance the Mozambique project, which was initially launched in 2012 after the discovery of a vast natural gas reserve. However, due to ongoing violence and instability in the Cabo Delgado Province, the project was halted in 2021. In 2025, Eximbank approved an amendment to the original loan agreement, allowing the project to restart without a new environmental impact assessment or public comment period. Friends of the Earth and Justiça Ambiental filed a lawsuit, claiming that the amendment violated several federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Export-Import Bank Act.
The district court denied the organizations' request for a preliminary injunction, stating that they were unlikely to succeed in proving their standing to challenge the loan amendment. The court found that the groups had not demonstrated a concrete injury resulting from Eximbank's actions, which led to their appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "The Appellants have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of organizational standing to challenge the approval of the 2025 Amendment." The court emphasized that the organizations did not demonstrate how the lack of a notice and comment period directly harmed their interests or those of the communities they serve.
The ruling also noted that while the organizations claimed the project would exacerbate local conflicts and environmental degradation, they did not provide sufficient evidence to link these harms directly to Eximbank's approval of the loan amendment. The court highlighted the need for a clear causal connection between the actions of Eximbank and the alleged injuries suffered by the organizations.
The decision has significant implications for the future of environmental advocacy in relation to federal financing of international projects. The court's ruling reinforces the challenges faced by organizations seeking to challenge government actions based on procedural grounds, particularly when it comes to demonstrating standing. It also raises questions about the accountability of federal agencies in assessing the environmental and social impacts of large-scale projects funded by taxpayer dollars.
Moving forward, the ruling may embolden federal agencies like Eximbank to proceed with similar financing arrangements without extensive public scrutiny or consideration of environmental impacts. It also sets a precedent that could limit the ability of advocacy groups to intervene in such decisions, potentially hindering efforts to protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems from the adverse effects of large-scale industrial projects.
As for next steps, Friends of the Earth and Justiça Ambiental could consider further legal options, including seeking a rehearing or potentially escalating the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, details regarding any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.