“Drain the swamp” is fun to say, and it makes for a great slogan for an election campaign. But too often, that’s where it stops. How many times have you heard politician after politician use such a phrase only to be elected and leave the swamp intact—or make it murkier? But now, it’s 2025. President Trump is back in office, and he is setting a standard of excellence when it comes to draining the swamp—especially on some key issues. And Scottsdale’s newly elected city council is following his lead.
President Trump unleashed a torrent of Executive Orders that have unleashed fossil fuel production in America, rolled back the Green New Deal climate cult fantasy, ended DEI and other race-based hiring and employment practices, and is taking a sledgehammer to the administrative state by letting Elon Musk identify and eliminate billions in wasteful spending.
As we have watched the Trump team move at warp speed to deliver on their campaign promises, we were curious to see if any other state or local governments would follow Trump’s lead at plowing ahead with DOGE-style meaningful reform. Here in Arizona one city has: Scottsdale…
Things are just not going well for the leftwing activist groups, billionaire-funded NGOs and trial lawyer firms who have recruited a growing number of state and local government entities to sue U.S. oil and gas companies involving specious claims for damages caused by climate change. In recent months, the lawfare campaign, coordinated mainly from the offices of one San Francisco-based firm, has suffered a series of adverse judicial decisions in what appears to be a rising consensus in the nation’s courts.
Just two weeks after suffering a major setback in a decision involving Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the pushers and funders of this lawfare campaign were tossed out in a case targeting ExxonMobil, Chevron and additional defendants in New Jersey. There, Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd dismissed the Garden State’s lawsuit with prejudice based on the same federal primacy arguments which prevailed in recent decisions in New York City and Baltimore, as well as in the Anne Arundel case.
In seeking damages, New Jersey adopted similar tactics adopted in the other cases that make up this lawfare campaign, claiming they’ve been harmed by “climate change” impacts allegedly caused by the emissions by oil companies, but attempting to couch the damages as violations of state laws unrelated to air pollution. But Hurd was having none of it.
“Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case,” the judge says in his decision, “this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.”
The problem for the states, cities and counties who have signed up for this lawfare campaign in the hopes of grabbing some big bucks from Big Oil is that their arguments inevitably amount to a local effort to de facto regulate air quality, an area of regulation in which the federal government has always asserted its primacy. There’s a very good reason for this: If every city, county and state in America were allowed to regulate air quality, the economy would soon grind to a halt as it becomes impossible to do business in this country.
Like the judges in the other cases decided thus far, Hurd conceded to that reality in dismissing the New Jersey case, saying, “As Defendants state in their moving brief, ‘the federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions,’” adding, “In conclusion, only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands.’”
The decision in the New Jersey case no doubt comes as a real disappointment for the billionaire-funded foundations and NGOs who spent years pushing for the state attorney general’s office to bring a case. In 2023, Energy Policy Advocates obtained emails detailing tactics employed by the Rockefeller-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince various cities and counties in the state to sign onto the lawfare campaign.
Those emails revealed close coordination between CCI and New Jersey officials, even to the extent of CCI funding an “Accountability University” to educate lawfare participants about the best tactics and talking points to deploy in their big money grab efforts.
CCI even offered to “ghost write” opinion pieces for public officials and “serve as an extra set of hands,” adding, “…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…”
So, what’s the point of all this, you might ask? Well, the point is that when you see one of these lawsuits brought by a city, county or state government, just know that none of this is happening organically. Also know that this big money grab costs these companies millions to defend themselves, and we all end up paying for it at the gas pump and in our home utility bills. Maybe it’s time we all demand these billionaires and trial lawyers find more productive ways to spend their time and money.
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.
President Trump’s historic victory in the November election gave him a clear mandate from the American people. And so far, he hasn’t wasted any time getting to work. In his first month back in office, Trump signed 45 Executive Orders (EO) in an effort to put America first and undo much of the damage created by the Biden administration. And that’s especially true with his executive actions to unleash American energy.
Ending the Net Zero Climate Cult Fantasy
For four years under President Biden, the American people were forced to endure an administration that was hellbent on pursuing a net zero agenda. Across the country, they pushed these radical and costly climate action plans to fundamentally transform and restrict the energy options available to consumers. Along with this came calls from the Left to ban gas stoves, gas cars, gas-powered lawn equipment, and hundreds of other draconian ideas to limit the freedom of the American people.
If the high cost of these plans wasn’t enough, they have also proven to be unreliable. States and countries that have committed to energy sources like solar and wind as part of this net zero fantasy have experienced rolling blackouts, continually demand that their customers use less, and eventually have to make haste to open reliable sources of generation they had closed down. Isn’t that right, California?
But Trump’s Executive Order 14154 unleashes fossil fuel production and use in America while unwinding much of the damage caused by the Biden administration…
In a 5-2 vote last week, the Fountain Hills Town Council rejected the ‘Vision Zero Road Diet Plan,’ to be initiated through a Federal FY 2024 SS4A Grant Program applied for under former Mayor Ginny Dickey.
The grant is part of the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” despite its wide rejection by all but two House Republicans and a majority of GOP Senators. The grant would have launched a two-year long project with $240,000 in federal funds matched with $60,000 from the town, bringing the total taxpayer cost to $300,000, according to documentation prepared by Town Engineer David Janover.
The summary of the plan explains: “This grant aligns with the Town’s commitment to Vision Zero principles, aiming to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries while fostering safer, more accessible transportation infrastructure. Additionally, the grant is in direct accord with the Town’s 2022 Strategic Plan which notes a priority of ‘improving the public health, well-being, and safety of our town.’”
The plan purported to:
Identify areas for infrastructure improvements to enhance safety for all users.
Develop speed management strategies in high-risk areas.
Engage residents through public outreach to reflect community needs.
Address pedestrian accessibility and emergency route improvements.
Provide a framework for future safety improvements and grant applications.
Councilman Allen Skillicorn, joined by fellow councilors Gayle Earle, Rick Watts, Vice Mayor Hannah Toth, and Mayor Gerry Friedel, voted to reject the Resolution citing the plan’s inclusion of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies.
Councilwoman Earle asked pointedly during the Jan. 21st meeting, “How is this plan racially equitable? Climate change, how does that relate to streets?”
As noted by Earle, the text of the grant agreement included a page-and-a-half-long commitment to “Improve Racial Equity and Reduce Barriers to Opportunity,” in which the town provided a “supporting narrative.” It stated, “The Town of Fountain Hills is committed to addressing equity considerations as part of its Comprehensive Safety Action Plan under the SS4A grant. While Fountain Hills is an affluent community, its neighboring community, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, represents an underserved population. Recognizing the proximity and interconnectedness of these communities, the Town will actively engage with representatives from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to gather input on how Fountain Hills’ street and walking networks can better serve all users and improve regional equity.”
“Efforts will include:
Targeted Outreach: Collaborating with leaders and residents of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to understand how Fountain Hills’ transportation infrastructure impacts their access to opportunities and regional connections.
Community Engagement Workshops: Hosting inclusive sessions to gather feedback on specific barriers to safe walking, biking, and driving within Fountain Hills for residents traveling from or to the Nation.
Equity-Focused Improvements: Using feedback to identify opportunities for enhancing transportation safety and accessibility in Fountain Hills, such as improved pedestrian crossings, better wayfinding, and multimodal infrastructure.
This approach ensures the Town of Fountain Hills addresses equity and reduces barriers to opportunity within its jurisdiction while fostering a collaborative relationship with its neighboring community. By integrating these considerations into the Safety Action Plan, the Town demonstrates its commitment to creating a more inclusive and accessible environment for all.”
Skillicorn condemned the plan saying, “This plan includes a commitment to gender equity, why? This plan mentions greenhouse gases seven times, mentions climate change nine times, mentions environmental justice thirteen times, and mentions equity twenty times. Our town and our nation have rejected wokeness and DEI. Today is a new era of common sense. This is not for our town.”
Last night Fountain Hills, AZ rejected woke DEI Road Diets 5-2. Earle, Friedel, Toth, Watts, and Skillicorn all voted to kill woke Vision Zero while both McMahon and Kalivianakis voted for road diets and transportation social justice. pic.twitter.com/QefGwvtSNl
— Skillicorn for Arizona🌵 🇺🇸 (@allenskillicorn) January 22, 2025
As referred to by Skillicorn, the grant agreement included a commitment to “prioritized climate change resilience and environmental justice.” It stated, “To address environmental justice, we have engaged with local communities, including those historically affected by environmental disparities, to understand their specific needs and concerns. This engagement informs our plan to incorporate shaded pathways, safe pedestrian areas, and accessible emergency routes, ensuring equitable access to cooler, walkable areas that mitigate urban heat island effects. Together, these actions reflect our commitment to climate adaptation and environmental justice, enhancing the well-being and resilience of all residents.”
Skillicorn followed with a motion to deny what he referred to in a statement to AZ Free News as the “Woke DEI Vision Zero Road Diet Plan.” Vice Mayor Hannah Toth seconded the motion observing, “Of course we want zero pedestrian injuries. My job is to find hidden meanings, often these are not so great in practice. Fifteen Minute Cities sound great but are not. Vision Zero is something I do not feel comfortable inviting into our town.”
Recognizing that voters are increasingly skeptical of extreme climate regulations, dark money groups have stepped in with millions of dollars to alter the conversation.
The goal of these groups, as reported in recent news, is to help climate activists “talk like humans” and present their ideas in a way that doesn’t alienate voters.
Essentially, these groups advise activists on how to sound less radical by softening the rhetoric and framing their climate agenda as more palatable and less divisive. But there’s an obvious catch: this is a messaging campaign, not a policy shift.
If you must teach someone to talk like a human, the message is probably not the problem — it’s the policy, isn’t it?
Beginning with the mythical “new ice age” predicted in the 1970s, the climate alarmists have tried for half a century now to convince us that humans are negatively impacting the climate and that the only solution is for us to diminish the very things — food, energy, and transportation, to name a few — that have brought progress not just to the United States but everywhere around the globe.
The problem is that folks just aren’t buying it, or at least aren’t buying the radical solutions proposed by far-left government officials, out-of-work politicians desperate to make a buck, and the NGOs and think tanks that provide financial backing to them all.
Now, since voters aren’t buying what they’re selling, they want dark money groups to help activists disguise their radical agenda by using softer language, subbing out phrases like “climate change” and “warming” to “extreme weather” and “overheating.”
It seems more than a little ironic that the same voices on the left who accuse energy companies of peddling “fake news” and “climate denialism” to protect their profits are now using a web of dark money to fund a communications strategy that relies on concealment and manipulation. Talk about hypocrisy.
Their problem, of course, lies in the reality that their policy “solutions” do not resonate with the public and do not deliver as advertised. Solutions that actually work and are truly affordable wouldn’t require these kinds of deceptive tactics to gain public support. But their approach is the furthest thing from in touch with what an endless numbers of pre-election surveys and exit polls showed is voters’ most pressing concern today — the economy.
Just look at the adverse economic consequences that came from President Joe Biden’s radical energy policies.
Within hours of assuming office, Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, killing thousands of union jobs. He conducted a regulatory assault on energy companies, limited drilling permits and access, supplied nearly $500 billion in tax dollars to green energy initiatives, and pushed policies that made fossil fuel production more difficult and expensive. Gas prices spiked, and utility bills soared for millions of Americans, hitting the middle class especially hard.
And that’s not all. Of course, nearly every good purchased or consumed is shipped by trucks and trains which run on fossil fuels. Driving up the cost of fuels drives up the price of shipping, which, in turn, drives up the prices of the goods being shipped. That is exactly what Biden’s radical energy policies did. Add to that the fact that, even as fuel prices moderated in recent months, prices for consumer goods have remained stubbornly high, and it’s no wonder the Biden policies became so unpopular.
While the administration justified these policies as steps toward a cleaner, greener future, the main effect felt by average American families was a squeeze on their household budgets and a heightened sense of financial instability.
No amount of dark money will bring the climate alarm movement’s views into line with the mainstream, and no amount of softer language will allow them to change the conversation in a manner that convinces the public to give up their gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the radical Biden policies and the needs of average Americans living out here in “flyover country.” Until they can address the true economic consequences of their climate agenda, they will continue to lose elections and legislative policy battles. And that’s welcome news for us all.
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.
