FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
Summary: This case challenges the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)’s unlawful approval of a $4.7-billion-dollar loan to subsidize French oil giant TotalEnergies’ construction of a massive, highly controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique. EarthRights represents Friends of the Earth U.S. (FOE), and Justiça Ambiental (JA or Friends of the Earth Mozambique ), environmental non-profits that work with communities impacted by the project, in suing EXIM.
EXIM approved an initial loan for the project in 2019, despite strong opposition from FOE, JA, and other organizations that raised the alarm that the project would have devastating impacts on people, the local environment, and the climate. However, that loan was never disbursed and the project context has changed dramatically.
Since 2019, armed conflict between government forces and insurgents known as Al-Shabab or ISIS-Mozambique has engulfed the province where the project is located. The insurgents have killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Mozambican military forces have also been accused of committing grave human rights violations against civilians in the context of the conflict.
The area has been heavily militarized with thousands of foreign troops and local security forces guarding the project. The Mozambican military forces have reportedly committed war crimes, including at the project site, such that multiple countries have launched investigations and paused further consideration of supporting the project.
TotalEnergies declared force majeure in 2021 due to the conflict, only lifting it in October 2025. . The conflict remains active, complex, and highly dangerous.
Throughout 2024, TotalEnergies unsuccessfully lobbied for EXIM to re-approve financing for the project. After President Trump took office in January 2025, he named two “acting” members of the board of directors, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and, as alleged in the lawsuit, in violation of both EXIM’s charter and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Just weeks later, the “acting” board rushed through new financing for the LNG project in Mozambique with only two days of notice to the public. EXIM made this decision without permitting public or congressional input, and in violation of federal law.
Despite the dramatically deteriorated security and human rights context, a radically changed production timeline, a completely different global LNG market, and numerous pending investigations, EXIM charged forward. Lacking the legally required quorum of Senate-confirmed board members, as alleged in our lawsuit, the “acting” board dispensed with notice and comment requirements, failed to undertake the statutorily required economic analysis, and failed to ensure the loan would not exceed the substantive legal limitations on EXIM lending. In so doing, we allege that the “acting” board unlawfully, arbitrarily, and recklessly, rubber stamped billions of taxpayer funds for a foreign corporation and an overseas project with significant, unacknowledged human, environmental, and economic costs.
The lawsuit is brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and alleges that EXIM’s final approval violates the substantive and procedural requirements of the Export Import Bank Act of 1945, 12 U.S.C. §§ 635-635t, EXIM’s own procedures, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs seek to bar disbursement of any funds under the unlawful approval and ask the court to declare that approval null and void.
In July 2025, Plaintiffs asked the Court to issue a preliminary injunction preventing EXIM from disbursing funds or otherwise acting under the unlawful approval while it considers the case, or in the alternative, to grant Plaintiffs summary judgment on a subset of their claims. Total intervened in the case. EXIM and Total opposed Plaintiffs’ motions, and Total asked the court to grant partial summary judgment in their favor.
The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction despite finding Plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm, as they “and the communities they serve will likely be harmed” if the loan proceeds. The district court held Plaintiffs’ claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court found Plaintiffs had standing on a subset of their claims but held that Plaintiffs likely lack standing for most of their claims.
The district court also held that, because EXIM initially approved Project funding in 2019, the Bank Act imposed no obligations in 2025, even though the Board’s 2025 approval was necessary for any loan to proceed. But the Act requires notice and comment for any “final consideration” of a major transaction. 12 U.S.C. § 635a(c)(10). The 2025 approval was EXIM’s “final consideration” of whether to lend Total billions of dollars; it could have said “no.” The Act also requires EXIM to analyze its transactions’ economic effects. 12 U.S.C. § 635(e). But it never considered the undisputed fact that the Project will hurt U.S. producers and workers because liquified natural gas will now be in oversupply when production begins. EXIM’s reliance on stale comments and obsolete analyses— thereby ignoring current reality—is patently arbitrary. Since 2019, the economics have changed, the Project and nearby villages have become insurgent targets, and forces protecting the Project have reportedly committed grave human rights abuses. Total has not replaced all the land it took. Diverse parties, including United States Senators from both political parties, have publicly raised these and other concerns. Moreover, the district court erred by deferring to EXIM’s decision to forgo a NEPA analysis, even though it never explained its refusal.
Plaintiffs appealed in November 2025, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case in February 2026.
The Defendants are the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) and the members of the “acting” Board of Directors of EXIM in their official capacity.
Congress created EXIM to promote and facilitate U.S. exports by providing loans and loan guarantees to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods and services. 12 U.S.C. § 635.
TotalEnergies EP Mozambique Area 1, Limitada (“TEPMA1”), the Project operator, intervened as a defendant.
Justiça Ambiental (JA), or Friends of the Earth Mozambique, is a private nonprofit organization working to reduce the environmental and social impacts of Mozambique’s rapid development. JA is based in Mozambique.
Friends of the Earth United States (FOE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, membership-based organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.
FOE and JA are affiliates of Friends of the Earth International, a global network of grassroots groups working in 70 countries to promote environmental sustainability, social justice, and respect for human rights.
The lawsuit is brought under the APA and alleges violations of the substantive and procedural limitations of the Bank Act, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and EXIM’s own policies and procedures.
As EXIM’s overseas financing can raise sensitive foreign policy, economic, environmental, social, and human rights concerns, Congress placed strict limits on EXIM’s authority under the Export Import Bank Act of 1945 (“the Bank Act”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 635-635t. Congress required that major financing decisions could only be made by a duly constituted, Senate confirmed, board of directors. Congress directed that before finally approving large transactions, EXIM must provide notice and opportunity to comment, and the board must consider the views of the public, Congress, and other administrative agencies. EXIM is required to assess and consider the potential adverse economic impacts in the United States. Congress also directed EXIM to ensure that the environmental and social impacts of the large infrastructure projects it supports are assessed and properly managed. Our lawsuit alleges violations of these requirements.
First, the lawsuit alleges that President Trump unlawfully installed two “acting” members of the Board of Directors of EXIM, in violation of the Bank Act and the Vacancies Act. Because the “acting” board lacked the statutorily required quorum of Senate-confirmed members, it lacked the authority to approve a loan of this size.
Second, the lawsuit alleges that EXIM dispensed with several notice-and-comment requirements that would have gathered critical input from the public and Congress.
Third, EXIM failed to consider the domestic economic impact of the project at the time production “will first be sold,” as the Bank Act requires.
Fourth, EXIM failed to adequately consider the Project’s environmental and social risks, as required by the Bank Act and the Bank’s Environmental and Social Due Diligence Procedures and Guidelines. This includes considering the risks that the conflict poses to the project, its workers, and local people.
Fifth, the loan approved by the Board exceeds Congress’s limits on over-subsidizing foreign projects.
The lawsuit also brings claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failure to adequately consider climate impacts.
April 2015 – American-led consortium asked EXIM for a $5 billion loan for a liquified natural gas facility in Mozambique.
2015-2019 – EXIM made public an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and conducted a Detailed Economic Impact Analysis based on predictions available in 2019 for market conditions when production was scheduled to start in 2024. Prior to approval, EXIM notified Congress about the application for final approval of the project, and provided notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment. As EXIM considered the Project, an insurgency gained force and engulfs Cabo Delgado, where the Project is located.
2015-2021 – The Project reportedly takes hundreds of farmers’ homes and land. JA and others have documented issues with the displacement process including: land being taken without providing adequate compensation, and blocking fisherpeoples’ access to the sea. The Project begins construction.
September 2019 – EXIM’s Board of Directors approved the loan application.
August – September 2019 – Occidental acquires Anadarko. Total acquired Anadarko’s 26.5% operating interest in the Mozambique LNG project. Total becomes the lead sponsor and operator.
May 2020 – EXIM’s Board approved amendments to the loan, with Total as lead sponsor and operator, which reduced the loan amount from $5 billion to $4.7 billion and expanded the scope of EXIM’s financing to include the offshore portion of the facility. .
January 2021 – Media reported that the Project suspended activities due to nearby insurgent attacks, including at a village in the Project’s concession built to resettle people it displaced.
March 2021 – Insurgents attacked Palma, many Project contractors’ base of operations. Insurgents reportedly killed hundreds of residents and at least 55 contractors, beheading many victims.
April 2021 – Total declared force majeure and halted work.
Mid 2021 – Mozambican forces operating out of the Project’s gatehouse reportedly offered hundreds of local men, women, and children refuge at the Project site, then accused them of being insurgents. Soldiers allegedly sexually assaulted women, locked men in shipping containers at the entrance to Total’s facilities, and beat, suffocated, starved, and tortured the civilian detainees for months, killing most of them.
January 2024 – Total requested EXIM Board approval of a new agreement necessary to permit financing that includes a four-year extension of the completion and repayment dates in the old loan.
February 2025 – President Donald Trump appointed James Cruse to serve as the Acting EXIM President and James Burrows to serve as the Acting EXIM First Vice President.
March 2025 – The Dutch Government announced that they would investigate the alleged massacre at the Project site by forces protecting Total’s facilities. French prosecutors opened an investigation against Total for involuntary manslaughter, following criminal charges filed by victims and survivors of the Palma massacre.
March 11, 2025 – EXIM posted the agenda for its March 13 board meeting.
March 13, 2025 – Acting President Cruse, Acting First Vice President Burrows, and Board Member Bachus approved the new loan terms and financing, enabling the Project to proceed.
June 2025 – Media reported that the United Kingdom had “commissioned a human rights review” into the alleged massacre at the Project site by forces protecting Total’s facilities.
July 14, 2025 – Friends of the Earth U.S. and Justiça Ambiental sued EXIM, Acting President Cruse, Acting First Vice President Burrows, and Board Member Bachus.
July 21, 2025 – Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, partial summary judgment, and an expedited hearing.
August 5, 2025 – District Court granted Total’s motion to intervene as a defendant.
September 25, 2025 – District Court heard oral argument on motion for a preliminary injunction.
October 10, 2025 – District Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
October 25, 2025- Total lifts force majeure.
November 2025 – Plaintiffs appeal District Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
December 2025 – United Kingdom and Dutch export credit agencies withdrew $2.2 billion in Project support due in part to recent security risks and human rights concerns. The lawsuit is brought under the APA and alleges violations of the substantive and procedural limitations of the Bank Act, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and EXIM’s own policies and procedures.
As EXIM’s overseas financing can raise sensitive foreign policy, economic, environmental, social, and human rights concerns, Congress placed strict limits on EXIM’s authority under the Export Import Bank Act of 1945 (“the Bank Act”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 635-635t. Congress required that major financing decisions could only be made by a duly constituted, Senate confirmed, board of directors. Congress directed that before finally approving large transactions, EXIM must provide notice and opportunity to comment, and the board must consider the views of the public, Congress, and other administrative agencies. EXIM is required to assess and consider the potential adverse economic impacts in the United States. Congress also directed EXIM to ensure that the environmental and social impacts of the large infrastructure projects it supports are assessed and properly managed. Our lawsuit alleges violations of these requirements.
First, the lawsuit alleges that President Trump unlawfully installed two “acting” members of the Board of Directors of EXIM, in violation of the Bank Act and the Vacancies Act. Because the “acting” board lacked the statutorily required quorum of Senate-confirmed members, it lacked the authority to approve a loan of this size.
Second, the lawsuit alleges that EXIM dispensed with several notice-and-comment requirements that would have gathered critical input from the public and Congress.
Third, EXIM failed to consider the domestic economic impact of the project at the time production “will first be sold,” as the Bank Act requires.
Fourth, EXIM failed to adequately consider the Project’s environmental and social risks, as required by the Bank Act and the Bank’s Environmental and Social Due Diligence Procedures and Guidelines. This includes considering the risks that the conflict poses to the project, its workers, and local people.
Fifth, the loan approved by the Board exceeds Congress’s limits on over-subsidizing foreign projects.
The lawsuit also brings claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failure to adequately consider climate impacts.
(District Court) Complaint – July 2025
https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025.07.14_FOE-v-EXIM-Complaint-Filed-Copy-Mozambique.pdf
(District Court) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – July 2025
https://earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/13-1.pdf
(District Court) Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – August 2025
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UHa4Eh0-kwWMdukCIEfShS8ZHpVxkpRJ/view?usp=sharing
(District Court) Total’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction- August 2025
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_4wo8Byb8mXRxit15sazLyV_we7q72BW/view?usp=drive_link
(District Court) Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction – September 2025
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P-VIzwOwzyTQ2XSO2xRT7A_3KCp6EmQ/view?usp=sharing
(District Court) Opinion denying preliminary injunction – October 2025 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NPSr-M0fq_5hQhCXIqulyivxuPZqg4-M/view?usp=sharing
(DC Circuit Court of Appeals) Plaintiffs’ Appellant Brief – November 2025 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hclaYhOUprLhgVg_WHRfSrZAmRMwFu5j/view?usp=sharing
(DC Circuit Court of Appeals) Federal Defendants’ Appellee Brief – December 2025
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X26IJMXkKPkXSUTlTb7ext68kqAcAFW_/view?usp=sharing
(DC Circuit Court of Appeals) Total’s Appellee Brief -December 2025
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QwWoUTrgSOGvUnOvcsrIsMxVRvrZ9gGQ/view?usp=sharing
(DC Circuit Court of Appeals) Plaintiff-Appellants’ Reply Brief – January 2026
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ueLyXryhnwSlXx15fR2pHRDKbwyJLWT0/view?usp=sharing
Help us fight for justice
In a world where climate disruption is accelerating, corporate harm often goes unchecked, and threats against advocates continue to rise, our victories remind us where we’re most needed and most effective.