A tale of government most fowl (Part 2)

Venice has its pigeons and Capistrano its swallows. Flying over the White House and Capitol Hill these days are birds of a different feather – chickens. Part 1 of A Tale of Government Most Fowl focused primarily on Trump’s cluckers, e.g., tariffs, inflation, and governance, most associated with President Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans.

In Part 2, the discussion goes to the chickens coming to roost in the Democrats’ political coop and how the clean energy and environmental communities must rethink their messaging. Although all elections are important, some are more important than others. History will look back on the 2026 midterms as among the most momentous of the modern era.

From his first day back in power, President Trump has unleashed what can only be described as a holy war on Democrats of whatever persuasion, i.e., moderate, liberal, and socialist, as well as the mainstream media, government institutions, the Constitution, immigrants, and clean energy and the environment. In his “flooding the field” with over 200 executive orders – nearly all of which have been challenged in court – he has changed the nature of the presidency and the culture of federalism as it’s been practiced at least since FDR’s New Deal.

Given the scale of what Trump has wrought, the coming midterm elections will be a referendum on his policies and presidency. Whether voters will view the president’s America First agenda as the conservative counterpart to the New Deal or a raw deal is largely dependent upon the state of the economy between now and November 2026.

Based on history and current voter surveys, the president and his party are realistically facing the possible loss of the House in the next elections. The last time Trump was in office during a midterm (2018), the Democrats won a net total of 41 House seats. It was the Democrats’ “largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats.” Trump’s approval ratings in the run-up to that year’s balloting were nearly ten points higher than his current ratings.

As I referenced in Part 1, most economic and political analysts believe that the impact of Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and his executive actions are only now showing up in the numbers, e.g., increasing inflation. They predict things will only worsen regarding the economy, the job market, and federal governance.

Henry Olsen has reported on a recent poll showing the GOP holding advantages over the Democrats of seven points on the economy, 13 points on immigration, and a whopping 22 points on crime. The article indicated that Republicans outperformed Democrats with Independents. (Note that Olsen isn’t speaking of Trump but of Republicans in general.)

A backlash vote could flip the House and even the Senate. Still, it shouldn’t be confused with actual support or as a setup for the 2028 presidential elections regarding either the Democrats or federal climate policy.

The Democrats have a critical problem when it comes to defining who they are, what they stand for, and what solutions they have to the multiple existential threats to the nation’s well-being. Whatever else voters think of Trump, they know where he stands on things. When it comes to the Democrats – not so much. Being against Trump is not enough.

One thing that Biden and Trump had in common as candidates was low poll numbers when it came to the country’s direction. “A year before the presidential election, three-quarters of Americans (76%) believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and the leading Democratic and Republican candidates are viewed broadly unfavorably, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll. Only 23% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.”

The overall numbers aren’t much different today. A September (2026) AP/NORC poll showed only 25 percent of those surveyed believed the country is heading in the right direction. For the president and the GOP, the most concerning survey results should be the 20 percent drop between June and September in the view of Republicans that the nation was on track for good things to come.

If the opinions of polls and pundits weren’t enough to indicate that voters may not be thrilled with how Trump has chosen to make good on his promises, there’s the concern expressed by the big man himself. The best examples are his rebranding of the OBBB as the Working Families Tax Cut Bill (WFTCB?) and his call to red states to gerrymander their congressional districts to give Repub-licans an advantage over the current maps. Neither is a sign of confidence.

It bears repeating that a Democratic win in 2026 could primarily be about backlash to Trump and only incidentally (if at all) about what the Democrats are pitching. It brings me to the topic of messaging.

The Democrats aren’t the only ones with a messaging problem. Efforts to counter Trump’s egregiously false claims about climate change and the reliability and cost of solar, wind, and energy efficiency with complex factual arguments have done little to expand the climate concerns of Americans.

A strong argument can be made that since 2018, American beliefs in human-caused climate change have decreased. Polls by Pew Research (2023), Monmouth University (2024), and Morning Consult (2025) have shown a drop of seven percent in the number of those who care “a great deal” about climate. Although the numbers of those concerned remain high, what has been clear for years is that climate change has never ranked high enough in voters’ minds to win congressional or presidential elections.

Voters in 2026 are going to be looking for answers to bread-and-butter issues. It will be up to the clean energy and environmental communities to help frame the debate in a manner that resonates with voters, particularly independents and conservative youth, and lays a bipartisan foundation on which to rebuild federal clean energy and environmental policies and programs.

The overarching reality of today’s politics is that Trump is dictating the terms of the debate – not only in the US but worldwide. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the president paired immigration and clean energy, e.g., solar and wind, as the two greatest threats to national prosperity. Trump told the delegates their countries were going to hell –

The 2026 midterms will be a back-to-basics election in which the economy is everyone’s core concern – as in most elections. For the bloodletting of federal climate-related programs to slow – if not stop -- an almost exclusive link between clean energy, the environment and the economy must be made.

The road to the 2026 balloting offers an opportunity to reset the climate debate in terms of today’s political realities. The objective of the recast debate is straightforward – to turn clean energy and the environment into a populist economic issue.

The following are a few of my recommended “rules of the road” to the 2026 midterms.

• Replace reflexive opposition to President Trump with a positive vision

• Stop preaching to the climate choir. It’s about converting the unbelievers

• Offer constructive alternatives and question whether the administration has undertaken rational reform of the nation’s environmental and energy agencies

• Make your message relatable to your audience:

• Watch your language – don’t get sucked into a debate about “the green new deal” or and giving up hamburgers. Find substitutes for words like “green” and “climate change”. Use words like resilience, hardening infrastructure, and rising temperatures

• Leave cultural issues at the door – it’s all about the economy

• Make it local – it’s what politics are about. If a new manufacturing facility were cancelled because of the administration’s positions on clean energy alternatives, and the rescission in the Inflation Reduction Act, relate it to the local economy. If federal funds for bicycle lanes or EV charging stations were withdrawn, talk it up. If a coal plant or mine in your community has been guilty of pollution, ask if they can be trusted to do what’s right without some regulation. If the administration broke the union that represents you and your neighbors, don’t be bashful in questioning the Republican commitment to working men and women.

• Employ the president’s mantra of “common sense” when commenting on Republican administrative reforms, e.g., it’s only common sense not to give fossil fuel companies and power producers a blank check on environmental protections. Is it sensible to cede vibrant overseas markets for electric vehicles and solar arrays to China? Technologies that were made in America first?

• Say it loud and say it often that it’s all about a healthy economy and a healthy environment – the nation’s, your community’s, and your family’s

• Remind your audience that Republican policies are partially fueling the rising price of electricity, which is escalating at a rate of 5.5 percent – twice the inflation rate. Prices are expected to rise at least through 2026 by eleven to 14 percent – a rate that would outpace overall inflation by 29 percent

• Identify solar and wind as the preferred sources of new electric generation. “The combination of solar and wind accounted for 90% of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first seven months of 2025.” July 2025 was the 23rd consecutive month in which solar has led among all new energy sources. Even fossil fuel states like Texas rely on clean energy technologies – notwithstanding the opposition of its Republican governor, attorney general, and legislature. They’re preferred for good reasons

• Emphasize that building new utility-scale or on-site solar and wind projects is faster than any fossil fuel or nuclear-powered electric plant

• Link clean energy and environmental stewardship to the agricultural economy and the price of food

• Tell voters that clean energy is about good-paying blue-collar jobs

• Reference that solar, wind, batteries, and other emerging new technologies have attracted trillions of dollars in private investments in new manufacturing facilities – a significant portion of which has been pulled back by investors who are nervous about the uncertainties of the market due to Trump’s actions and the wide partisan swings in US energy and environmental policy

• Extending the life of existing coal plants doesn’t create new jobs. New technologies create new jobs

I have no doubts that the nation will come to have buyer’s remorse over Trump’s decimating federal climate-related programs. It’s just common sense.

The easiest thing in Washington has always been to stop something. Starting something is another matter. Trump is not only wiping out Biden’s legacy. He’s attempting to turn back the clock to the 1950s and 1960s, when rivers caught fire. He talks about “traditional” energy sources. Why not go further back in time and use dried dung as the preferred energy source – what’s more traditional?

US energy and environmental policies have suffered from whiplash for decades. It’s only become more extreme in the Trump era. It’s bad for business and an inefficient way to go about the business of government. How much money is wasted starting up and shutting down programs?

Long after Trump leaves the White House, he will have left behind a very conservative Supreme Court. A court that increasingly ignores longstanding precedents and tells Congress it needs to be more specific in its use of legislative language. Members of Congress can barely stand being in the same room with each other. How are they going to agree on the details?

Politically, Democrats are carrying the climate burden on their backs. They’ve been doing it for a long time. There are strong supporters in the Republican ranks. Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME) immediately come to mind. However, those voices have largely been silenced in the Trump era, and perhaps marginalization is a better way to express them.

In such an evenly divided political environment, an electoral landslide is becoming a thing of the past. Moreover, there’s little likelihood that either party can hold power long enough to keep the whiplashes from happening. (That’s assuming no authoritarian takeovers.)

The current congressional stalemate over federal appropriations is ostensibly about maintaining Obamacare subsidies and restoring Medicaid cuts. But the problem is really more fundamental. The Democrats resent being asked to support a bill they were excluded from consulting on. Can’t blame them any more than you can blame Republicans when it happens to them.

What’s missing in Congress and between Democrats and Trump is trust. In the fight to keep the government open, Republicans have said they would work with Democrats on the matters of Medicaid reductions and the lapsing of the Obamacare subsidies. Back in the day, the offer would likely have been. accepted and the government kept open.

The ultimate answer to the whiplash problem — whether clean energy or healthcare programs — is bipartisanship, which seems a long way off. But it starts with better messaging.

This article is also published on the author's blog. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Interested in the companies shaping our sustainable future? See on illuminem’s Data Hub™ the transparent sustainability performance, emissions, and climate targets of thousands of businesses worldwide.