Unsurprisingly, crickets.
Consider the enabling of disinformation that is going on here, (as if you weren’t already.)

Seems like a plausible deniabilty thing

This direct contradiction of clearly articulated administration policy is possible because of the bank’s nominal independence. It makes its own decisions and evaluates its own deals—it’s supposed to conduct transactions that support the American economy, free from political interference.

In practice, however, the administration has quite a bit of sway over the bank and its priorities. The president appoints the director and the governing board, with the approval of the Senate. Currently, the bank’s president and chair is Reta Jo Lewis, a longtime Democratic operative and reliable Biden ally who worked in the Clinton and Obama White Houses. Publicly, the Biden administration has sent signals recently that it is not happy with its own bank. Last years, when the bank approved a loan to expand an oil project in Indonesia, a spokesperson for Biden’s National Security Council told Bloomberg News that ExIm had “made an independent decision to approve the loan under its authorities and its decision does not reflect administration policy.” While the statement was a notable shot across the bow from one part of the Biden administration to another, it also was not accompanied by any further action.

For critics, the recently approved Bahrain project is an excruciating example of the bank’s refusal to adhere to the administration’s stated policies on financing fossil fuel projects. Defenders of the bank will point out that the administration’s promise in Glasgow was just that—a promise, not a law. The bank has defended its oil and gas investments, pointing to the law that prohibits it from discriminating against projects based on industry.