Something is missing from the Democratic Party’s 2026 message, and its absence speaks louder than any speech. Climate change, the issue party leaders once called an existential emergency, has gone quiet. Journalists even have a name for it: climate hushing.
An analysis of congressional press releases by Inside Climate News found that Democratic mentions of climate change have plummeted since 2025, while talk of energy affordability has surged. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, once a green energy champion, now sells herself as a fighter against high utility bills, and her pivot is being called a blueprint for the party.
Behind closed doors, the shift is even starker. At a recent Senate Democratic strategy retreat, the polling presentation did not ask a single question about climate change. One attendee, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Whitehouse, called it a massive blind spot.
Give the strategists credit. They read the same election returns everyone else did. The party’s own review of the 2024 loss reportedly found that green transition messaging frightened workers in traditional industries who feared for their jobs. Voters punished Democrats for the high cost of living, and nothing raised that cost more visibly than energy.
But notice what the party retreated toward. They did not change the subject to something safe and unrelated. They ran straight at affordability, the exact ground where their climate record is weakest. You do not flee toward your own weakness. You flee toward it only when you have no choice, because the voters are already holding their ever-increasing electric bills.
And those bills tell the story. The average American residential electricity rate has climbed about 25% in four years, from just over 15 cents per kilowatt hour in 2022 to nearly 19 cents this spring. In the last year alone, rates jumped more than 7%.
Federal forecasters expect another increase in 2026, with the sharpest pain along the East Coast, where climate mandates are most aggressive. These are not acts of nature. They are the predictable result of policies that shut down reliable power plants and force expensive, weather-dependent replacements onto the grid. Like adding an undependable car to your family’s budget. It just increases your costs if you want reliability.
The price tag reaches well beyond the monthly bill. When Congress passed the ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, budget scorekeepers pegged its energy subsidies at around 370 billion dollars over ten years. The real number keeps climbing.
The Congressional Budget Office now estimates the clean energy tax credits alone will add 825 billion dollars to the deficit, and the Cato Institute puts the full range as high as nearly 2 trillion dollars over the same window. That is a wealth transfer from ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers to well-connected developers, and it buys higher prices, not lower ones.
Here is the admission hiding inside the silence. If the green transition were actually making energy cheaper, climate and affordability would be the same message, and there would be nothing to hush. The party could brag about both in the same breath. The fact that its own strategists had to choose between them, and chose to bury climate, is a confession that the two pull in opposite directions.
Some Democrats insist this is a recast, not a retreat. They argue that cheap solar and wind are the affordability answer, and that voters can be won by promising climate policy will lower bills.
But that claim collapses on contact with its own logic. If renewables were truly the cheapest power, they would not need mandates, subsidies, and regulatory waivers to force utilities to buy them. You do not have to compel people to choose the cheaper option. The mandates exist precisely because the market, left alone, would choose otherwise.
The honest lesson is one conservatives have argued for years. Reliable, affordable energy and heavy-handed climate central planning cannot coexist. Americans want to keep the lights on and the bills low, and they have figured out which policies deliver that and which do not.
Democratic strategists have figured it out too. That is why they have stopped talking. The quiet is not a change of heart. It is a change of subject, and it amounts to an admission that the policies were too expensive and too restrictive to defend out loud. The rest of us should say plainly that we do not want less reliable and more expensive electricity.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine just released a major report on extreme event attribution science, the increasingly trendy climate alarmism field that tries to pin specific hurricanes, heat waves, or floods on human-caused climate change and, more importantly, on the oil and gas companies activists love to sue.
The headlines from the usual media suspects will predictably claim the science has “advanced.” What they won’t emphasize is the report’s own admission that the field still faces “significant challenges,” or the roster of climate litigation partisans who helped shape it.
President Donald Trump immediately questioned the report’s legitimacy, and the reason why is pretty simple: The report was heavily influenced by academics and activists with apparent conflicts of interest.
One example is Michael Burger of Columbia’s Sabin Center, who also serves as of counsel to the Sher Edling firm in Honolulu’s climate lawfare effort targeting the oil and gas industry. In that role, Burger could benefit if courts start accepting these studies as proof of liability. The report’s acknowledgments thank him anyway while making no meaningful disclosure of his conflicts.
Oh.
But wait, there are more! Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who runs their Climate Accountability Campaign and Science Hub for — guess what? — Climate Litigation, served on the committee itself into early 2025.
Jessica Wentz, another Sabin Center figure previously tied to a now-rescinded Federal Judicial Center climate chapter written by litigation advocates, shows up in the acknowledgments.
So does Michael Wehner, linked to the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which trains judges on these very issues. One of the report’s own authors, Joyce Kimutai, has publicly argued that the “bar is too high” for using attribution in court and that the burden of proof should flip to the defendants. That’s not science talking. That’s advocacy.
The National Academies’ own conflict-of-interest policy demands advice “free from undue influence” from interested parties. This lineup makes a mockery of that standard.
Yet even with all that help from the climate lawfare complex, the NAS could not bring itself to declare victory for attribution science. Committee chair James Hurrell noted that the field “still faces challenges, and addressing them is necessary to fully realize the value of attribution science.”
Confidence in results “varies significantly across different types of extremes.” In other words, the science remains uneven, incomplete, and not ready to play the primetime role in the courtroom sought by activists for years.
That quest dates back at least to the 2012 Rockefeller-funded La Jolla conference, where participants openly discussed using attribution to link emissions to specific harms for litigation purposes.
Even then, they admitted “many challenges” in getting the science right. By 2021, researchers including Friederike Otto were conceding that plaintiffs were failing to overcome causation hurdles in court because the evidence simply didn’t connect individual emitters to specific losses. Five years later, after relentless pressure and Biden-era institutional capture, the NAS is still saying the same thing: significant challenges remain.
Attribution science was never pure science-based inquiry. It was purpose-built to support a coordinated campaign of lawsuits aimed at extracting settlements, driving up energy costs, and ultimately bankrupting or nationalizing parts of the fossil fuel industry.
Courts have mostly resisted so far because judges still require actual evidence of causation, not probabilistic storytelling disguised as settled science. The NAS report unintentionally underscores why those lawsuits keep stumbling.
Americans should pay attention. When activists capture scientific bodies, the product is not better science.
Instead, what we get for our taxpayer dollars are better press releases and stronger talking points for trial lawyers. The real-world energy system still runs on oil, natural gas, and coal because those fuels deliver affordable, reliable power.
Efforts to litigate them out of existence based on incomplete attribution models will inevitably produce the results that are impacting our pocketbooks in real time: higher energy costs, weakened reliability, all with zero impact on global temperatures.
The NAS had a chance to produce a clear-eyed assessment. Instead, it produced a document that both acknowledges the science’s limits and carries the fingerprints of the very people hoping to use it as a legal weapon.
That’s not how independent science works. It’s how lawfare works.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
For decades, America’s national debt has been treated largely as an economic problem.
Economists debate deficits, interest rates, inflation and tax policy while the problem continues to grow. Politicians argue over spending priorities while searching for additional revenue.
Yet an important question is often overlooked: What happens when the nation’s debt begins to influence its ability to protect itself? At what point does debt cease to be merely a fiscal concern and become a national security concern?
History teaches us that great powers seldom decline overnight. More often, they gradually lose the financial flexibility needed to respond to crises. Military superiority depends on advanced technology and the economic strength to sustain it.
A nation burdened by excessive debt eventually faces difficult choices between defending its interests abroad and meeting obligations at home.
America has long enjoyed advantages few nations possess. The U.S. dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and Treasury securities continue to attract investors seeking stability. Those advantages have allowed the United States to finance deficits at favorable rates. However, we should not mistake those advantages for immunity.
Every dollar spent servicing debt is unavailable for defense modernization, cybersecurity, infrastructure, scientific research and long-term competitiveness. As interest costs consume a growing share of the federal budget, policymakers face increasingly difficult tradeoffs.
The question is no longer whether America can borrow, but whether growing debt limits America’s strategic options.
National security today extends far beyond military hardware. It includes supply chain resilience, semiconductor manufacturing, energy independence, artificial intelligence, rare earth minerals, cyber defense and technological innovation. Maintaining leadership in each requires sustained investment. Fiscal constraints can quietly erode those investments long before the consequences become visible.
America’s competitors understand that economic strength and national power are inseparable. Today, nations compete through technology, industrial capacity, financial influence and strategic investment. Military force remains essential, but economic endurance often determines who prevails.
America’s founders recognized borrowing could be necessary during war or national emergency but understood that perpetual indebtedness threatened prosperity and independence. A government burdened by overwhelming obligations inevitably has fewer choices and becomes increasingly vulnerable.
Borrowing is sometimes necessary during wars, pandemics and economic crises. It should remain the exception—not the operating model of government.
As entitlement obligations grow and interest payments rise, an ever-larger share of federal spending becomes locked in, reducing flexibility to respond to geopolitical conflict, cyberattacks, natural disasters, or technological competition. Fiscal rigidity weakens national resilience.
Neither political party can claim innocence. Both have contributed to the nation’s fiscal trajectory through spending increases, tax reductions, emergency appropriations and expanding commitments. Responsibility belongs to both parties and so must the solution.
America’s strength has always rested on more than military power. It rests on economic vitality, innovation, productive workers, sound institutions and public confidence. Fiscal responsibility is part of that foundation.
The debate over the national debt should extend beyond budget negotiations. It should include America’s ability to lead, deter conflict, invest in future generations and respond to unexpected challenges. The real question is not how much debt America can sustain today, but how much strategic freedom future generations may lose if today’s debt continues to grow unchecked.
A nation’s strength is measured not only by its military or economy, but by its ability to preserve both. If mounting debt gradually limits America’s ability to defend its interests, invest in its future and respond to global threats, then the national debt is no longer merely an economic issue. It has become a national security issue.
Deborah A. Wilson is acontributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a Georgetown University Law graduate, and practicing lawyer in Northern Virginia. She is the author of The Seam: Secrets Beneath the North Pole and a freelance writer.
The teachers’ unions and their allies at Save Our Schools (SOS) have proven time and time again that they will do anything to kill universal school choice in Arizona.
They’ve fought expansion of the program. They’ve pushed to cap it. They’ve worked with activist reporters in the legacy media with ties to the Red for Ed teachers’ union to push false claims about it. And we all witnessed it four years ago when they made their not-so-triumphant proclamation that they had enough signatures to repeal the program—only to discover they had miscounted by more than 50,000 signatures.
But their latest attempt to overturn the program is their lowest yet.
Earlier this month, the teachers’ unions and SOS announced they had submitted more than 420,000 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universal eligibility of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program.
Given their track record, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club worked closely with the Goldwater Institute and other school choice advocates to review the petitions. What we found was far more disturbing than another failed signature count.
Dozens of Convicted Felons—Including Registered Sex Offenders—Hired to Collect Signatures
The teachers’ unions and SOS want Arizonans to believe that their “Protect Education Act” campaign is a grassroots effort led by concerned parents and educators. But they made a very different choice when it came time to build their campaign…
The prediction markets say Katie Hobbs is a heavy favorite. The pundits agree. I’ve heard long odds before — I heard them in combat, and I heard them in January when I ran for Party Chair. Here’s what the gamblers and pundits are missing.
This election comes down to one thing: who shows up. And I like our side of that math.
Republicans are the largest voting bloc in Arizona — 1.54 million strong, per the Secretary of State, a 321,000-voter lead over the Democrats. That lead has grown by more than 170,000 voters since 2022: we’ve added nearly 110,000 registrants while Democrats have lost more than 60,000. Their own DNC chair admits Democrats have “been getting our butts kicked” on registration — his words — shedding 2.1 million voters nationwide from 2020 to 2024. He’s right.
Republicans are the most reliable midterm voters in this state — we show up, every cycle, like clockwork. Independents don’t, not in midterms, and 2026 has no presidential race and no Senate race. Governor is the top of the ballot. Hobbs’s entire polling lead is parked with the voters least likely to vote. Ours is built on the voters most likely to show. Monster Republican turnout, uninspiring veto queen, low-turnout independent voters — and her lead evaporates.
And this time, no one has to guess whether their vote counts. The days of Republicans sitting home because they don’t trust the process are over. The RNC and AZGOP already have boots on the ground — Arizona is a priority state in the RNC’s multimillion-dollar election integrity operation, with a state director in place and thousands of trained poll workers, poll watchers, and observers being recruited right now. Eyes and ears on every vote cast and every vote counted. And because we’ve learned the Left doesn’t just campaign — they litigate — our attorneys are on offense: the RNC’s legal team is waging more than 130 election integrity lawsuits across the country, including here at home, where we’ve gone to court to defend Arizona’s early-ballot list maintenance laws and hold Secretary Fontes accountable. Leftist lawfare doesn’t get a free shot at this election. Not on my watch.
Trust the process, bank your ballot early, bring your neighbor. That’s the whole playbook.
Meanwhile, look at the incumbent. Hobbs’s disapproval has climbed to 43% and rising. Most Arizonans have never once said the state is on the right track under her. She squeaked by in 2022 by 17,117 votes. And she’ll spend this fall dodging questions about four separate pay-to-play inquiries — including a criminal probe by her own Party’s attorney general, whose investigators have asked to interview her as they close out a two-year investigation. Hobbs is uncomfortable talking about it. She’s nervous. She vetoed transparency legislation. Twice. Arizonans notice.
Andy Biggs doesn’t have her problems. He has a united party standing fully behind its nominee, the biggest voter bloc in Arizona, and a turnout machine that’s already running.
The gambling markets say Katie Hobbs. I’m the chairman of 1.5 million people who’d like to say otherwise. A lot of people are about to learn that they shouldn’t gamble against Arizona voters.
Sergio Arellano serves as Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.
Every time you think the energy policies pushed by the Democratic Party can’t possibly get any crazier, they go and fool you again.
Politico’s E&E News published an article Friday with a headline that should scare the bejeebers out of anyone who hopes for sanity in energy policy: “Progressives look to recharge the Green New Deal for the AI era.”
The piece quotes Melat Kiros, the socialist who unseated longtime incumbent Democratic Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette in the party’s recent Colorado primary as saying, “The Green New Deal, frankly, is a floor now, not a ceiling, for what we need to actually be looking at doing.”
This, of course, parrots the classic mantra of every generation of new socialists, who, when presented with the reality that socialism fails disastrously everywhere it is tried, invariably claim that it just hasn’t been done the right way, and they know better.
But they never really do know better.
Let’s be clear: what any version of the Green New Deal introduced by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Democratic Massachusetts Sen Ed Markey in 2019 would kill the AI era. Why? Because it is a classically socialist program by its very nature. It is a program which would seize the means of production through the central government, invoke a gigantic array of top-down command-and-control regulatory structures and utterly destroy the spirit of human initiative and innovation that leads to human flourishing and prosperity.
All the various socialist candidates quoted in the E&E piece are supported by The Sunrise Movement, a far-left activist NGO funded mainly by leftwing billionaire interests like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Tides Foundation and the Soros-affiliated Open Society Policy Center. What a surprise – it’s like a who’s who of far leftwing astroturf protest funders who have been behind every U.S. protest movement since Occupy Wall Street.
The Green New Deal as proposed by AOC and Markey seven years ago involved ending discretionary air travel; heavily restricting all other travel; heavily restricting personal driving; de facto banning oil, natural gas, and coal; building a vast network of high-speed rail lines which would cost trillions of dollars and take a century or more to develop (assuming the economy didn’t enter a major depression in the meantime); and destroying power grid reliability by forcing mass adoption of wind and solar.
To this new generation of Sunrise-supported socialists, that array of destructive and frankly impossible options is now the “floor” for what really needs to be done. You just can’t make this stuff up.
“The Democrat Party – the socialists, the Marxists – have nominated some of the most radical candidates to ever run for office, and they’re running for Congress. The insurgent left is on the rise,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after New York voters nominated three socialist candidates.
The speaker isn’t wrong; in fact, he’s a master of understatement. The insurgent left is not just on the rise, it is being funded by the same leftwing billionaire interests who funded the destruction of America’s coal industry, the anti-fracking movement and the effort to kill the shale revolution that has generated hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth and made the United States the world’s dominant energy powerhouse.
Any revitalization of the Green New Deal would be intentionally designed to destroy all of that and much more. Any effort to apply a renewed Green New Deal to the AI industry would be designed to destroy it, too. Because socialism at its base is never about building anything, but about destroying things, with human flourishing being its main target.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
