The Henchmen in Trump’s Climate Denial Army Are Well-Trained and On-Message

Remember when Spicer said, “I have not had a conversation with him”?

Ken Shipp/Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

On Tuesday, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt were each pressed, at separate events, to clarify whether President Donald Trump still considers climate change to be a hoax. Neither actually answered the question, but they left no doubt that science continues to be a low priority when crafting the administration’s official position.

At a White House briefing on Tuesday meant to showcase the administration’s pro-nuclear policies, Perry faced multiple questions about climate change. When they shifted from “energy dominance” to Trump’s views, Perry adopted Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s tried-and-true response: “I have not had that conversation with him,” he said.

Perry was asked about Trump’s efforts to pursue a “better” Paris climate deal—after the administration’s withdrawal from the international agreement in June—and admitted, “I’ve never asked the president what a better deal is.” Nonetheless, the Secretary of Energy noted,  “I’m pretty sure the president of the United States wakes up every day thinking about how to get a better deal” with respect to many issues.

He was able explain his own views, and, not surprisingly, they are in lockstep with this administration. “The science isn’t settled yet,” Perry said, claiming that there’s still too much confusion to have a debate on policy, but he’d welcome more debate on the science. “This is America. Have a conversation,” he said. “Let’s come out of the shadows of hiding behind your political conversations and let’s talk about it! I can full-well be convinced but why not let’s talk about it?” Several climate scientists have asked for just that kind of a conversation. Ten Florida scientists offered to educate him back in the fall, and a top scientists pushed for the presidential debates to give the issue more attention.

On Capitol Hill, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s exchange with Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on EPA budget cuts was a variation of the same theme. In several different ways, Udall asked this question: “What is the official Trump administration position on accepting the scientific evidence that manmade climate change is occurring?”

And repeatedly he got pretty much the same answer.

Unlike Perry, however, Pruitt tried to provide a more nuanced policy response. “Human activity contributes to it in some measure,” Pruitt said, but “measuring it with precision is very difficult.” He acknowledged that in 2007, the Supreme Court clearly ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding on whether climate change endangers public health. But, he noted, the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the “toolbox” to regulate emissions from power plants. Many environmental legal scholars disagree, saying that the EPA has full authority to require plans from states to limit greenhouse gas pollution.

Interestingly, Pruitt pointed to the EPA’s work on greenhouse gas regulations of vehicles as an example of what is, in his view, a proactive way the Trump administration will continue to respond to climate change. But those standards may be in jeopardy following a presidential review.

Udall continued to press for more on Trump’s official position. “I asked you the official Trump administration position,” he said. “I know you stated your position, but what is the official position?”

Pruitt repeated that his agency is “responsible for responding to the endangerment finding.” 

Whether Trump believes climate change may be beside the point: His cabinet officials represent all the shades of climate change denial, and that may be enough. 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate