Democrats say Trump’s climate rollbacks ‘corruption in action’

Democrats are linking President Trump’s unraveling of climate change regulations to a larger story about corruption, a midterm argument they think could hurt Republicans in the battles for the House and Senate this fall.

While climate change itself may not be an issue driving most voters to the polls, Democrats are seeking to make a broader case about Trump’s ties to powerful interests.

Asked his thoughts on the state of U.S. climate policy, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was succinct

“Corrupted,” he told The Hill. 

The latest battlefront is Trump’s repeal of the endangerment finding, the landmark legal finding that climate change is a threat to the public. The finding also underpins the nation’s climate rules, particularly rules for cars and trucks that Trump wiped out Thursday along with the finding.

While Democrats have long-sought to paint Trump as corrupt, including on climate, it’s an issue that has become increasingly cross-cutting in recent weeks amid the controversy over Trump’s ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and the president’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking $10 billion in taxpayer money.

In remarks on the Senate Floor Tuesday in anticipation of the endangerment finding’s repeal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the action as a “corrupt giveaway to Big Oil.”

“Big Oil has worked tirelessly for decades to undermine rules that protect against emissions, and now that they have their guy in the White House, they are taking their biggest swing yet,” Schumer said.

The repeal of the cars and trucks rule is expected to bolster consumption of oil-based fuels like gasoline, as automakers won’t have to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles to meet the standards.

Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, described the latest move as “corruption in action.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told The Hill the change is “just another payback by the Trump administration to the oil, gas and coal industry.”

Trump has justified the move as one that will save costs for Americans, making it so they will have to pay less for their cars.

“We are officially terminating the so-called ‘endangerment finding,’ a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers,” he said Thursday.

He dismissed environmental and health concerns related to the repeal, calling them “a giant scam.”

In recent months, Democrats have also sought to talk about energy issues as they relate to affordability amid Trump’s efforts to hamper renewable energy and rescind federal funding for green projects.

That message doesn’t apply as neatly to environmental regulations, however, where often the government imposes costs on businesses in order to maintain environmental standards. 

This week is not the first time Democrats have sought to paint Trump as working in cahoots with the oil industry, especially after Trump asked it for $1 billion in campaign cash.

The Washington Post reported that Trump said at the time the donations would be a “deal” for oil executives because of the tax cuts and relaxed regulations he would implement, but a source who spoke with The Hill said the discussion was not framed as any sort of quid pro quo. 

Some energy executives did ultimately make significant contributions to the Trump campaign. Oil industry alumni are also among the officials that the administration installed in the federal government, including at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

During the election, the Trump campaign sought to turn the narrative around on Democrats, saying they were the ones tied to “environmental extremists” and support for fossil fuels were simply part of the president’s vision for the country.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) told The Hill this week that in spite of the Trump administration and Republicans, he believes the U.S. will still make climate progress in the years ahead.

“We are decarbonizing in spite of Lee Zeldin, in spite of Chris Wright, we’re decarbonizing because markets want cheap stuff, and cheap stuff is clean stuff,” Casten said, referring to the leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department, respectively.

“We could be going a lot faster if they weren’t trying to subsidize every one of their mediocre buddies who can’t compete in a competitive market,” he added. “We will keep moving forward in spite of this, just the total absence of leadership is depressing.”