US Corporate Climate Advocacy Going Into 2025

• New research from InfluenceMap finds early evidence of entrenched fossil fuel interests seeking to influence and benefit from a second Trump administration. Many of the tactics already being deployed by industry are reminiscent of the first Trump presidency, indicating a continuation of familiar fossil fuel tactics to shape climate policy and politics.
• After entering office, President Trump can be expected to deliver on his promises to repeal all major environmental regulations, exit the Paris Agreement, and immediately deploy executive powers to reverse Biden administration actions like the pause on LNG exports. This analysis directly links the advocacy of five major industry associations—the American Exploration and Production Council, US Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)— to the increase in emissions that will result from Trump’s rollbacks. According to Carbon Brief, regulatory rollbacks alone will amount to a staggering 4bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined. (See graphic below).
• As of December 2024, 39% of all US entities (both companies and industry associations) assessed by InfluenceMap advocate on climate in a way that is misaligned with the scientific recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Higher numbers of misaligned entities in the US could indicate that many corporate interests are resisting climate policy and the energy transition, particularly compared to Europe, where only 19% of European entities are misaligned. These figures are heavily informed by the country’s fossil fuel industry associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has already issued a “5 point plan” calling for repeal of US fuel economy and other automotive regulations.
• Combining recent evidence with insights from the first Trump administration, this research offers three key observations of corporate policy influence that are likely to continue under the second Trump term. In addition to a shift from defensive legal challenges to offensive requests for repeal, the analysis finds significant corporate attention to issues of fossil fuel infrastructure and the future of gas that is likely to escalate in 2025. Along with automotive regulations, federal and state policies related to permitting reform and fossil gas have received the most advocacy across the US database, coming from a wide range of actors including powerful groups like the American Gas Association.
• Some entities like ExxonMobil have recently issued top-line statements supporting the Paris Agreement while saying nothing about deeper regulatory repeal and the need to accelerate, not slow, the energy transition. Going forward into 2025, corporate entities are likely to continue leveraging specific, nuanced narratives on climate that protect and promote fossil fuels, particularly in the eyes of the public. In one example of this trend, the briefing identifies a strong overlap in “consumer choice” rhetoric between industry interests and candidates in the recent US election. The Trump campaign frequently campaigned on the issue of “consumer choice” to criticize automotive regulations in swing states like Michigan. In strikingly similar messaging, corporate interests such as Exxon and the API publicly leveraged this same narrative on over 100 different occasions in 2024 alone.
• This briefing draws on analysis of companies and industry associations contained in InfluenceMap’s US platform, which has now expanded to include information on corporate policy engagement in the five largest US states by GDP. The briefing notes several leverage points for improving climate policy influence, including state-level climate advocacy by large renewable energy consumers and employers. InfluenceMap’s US platform will continue to expand in 2025 in line with the demand for more information on climate policy influence in US states.

InfluenceMap analysis in the United States has steadily climbed since 2015, with the LobbyMap database now covering 141 companies and 37 industry associations based in the US. Growth of the LobbyMap database prioritizes the largest companies as measured by the Forbes Global 2000 along with other considerations such as the sector’s relevance to climate change. Analysis has spanned multiple administrations, including President Trump’s first term in office.

• Of all 178 fully assessed entities headquartered in the US, including both companies and industry associations, 25 (14%) are engaging on climate policy in alignment with science-based policy recommendations, while 83 (47%) demonstrate advocacy that is partially aligned, and 70 (39%) are misaligned with scientific recommendations.
• By comparison, Europe has both a larger proportion of positively engaging companies and a much smaller proportion of highly negative (misaligned) entities. 42 (18%) assessed European companies and associations are engaging in line with IPCC recommendations, while 147 (63%) are partially aligned, and 45 (19%) are misaligned.
• In Asia-Pacific, 18 (6%) are fully science-aligned, 168 (57.5%) are partially aligned, and 104 (35.5%) are misaligned.
  
  

Higher numbers of misaligned entities in the US could indicate that many corporate interests are resisting climate policy and the energy transition, particularly compared to Europe, where many influential companies and groups have begun to align their advocacy with science-based recommendations.

• The results show the largest proportion of companies in the partially aligned category, similar to other regions. These are companies that advocate with a mix of positive and negative positions on different issues and/or that fall somewhere in the middle in their positions by not fully supporting or opposing an issue. In the US, many utilities, industrials, and auto companies fall into this grouping. These companies are highly implicated in the energy transition and are likely affected by Inflation Reduction Act funding, given that their own process of decarbonizing operations is still underway.
• A higher proportion of misaligned entities in the US compared to other regions is in part informed by a large number of negative industry groups, like the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association. While misaligned interests do not represent the whole economy, the US is particularly notable for a large number of actively obstructive industry associations that regularly oppose climate ambition: of the 37 groups assessed in the US, a majority (65%) are engaging highly negatively on climate policy. By contrast, in Europe, less than a third of assessed groups are misaligned. In many cases, these US industry associations represent the large and powerful domestic oil and gas sector.
  
  

A high proportion of negative interests makes policy progress unlikely in any administration. While negative interests do not represent the whole economy, Trump has stated he will protect oil interests. The change in administration in 2025 comes with obvious implications for emissions reduction in the US, along with related shifts in the landscape for corporate advocacy.

As in 2016, the recent US election comes with significant ramifications for US policy. President-elect Trump has pledged to undo virtually all federal climate regulations and to drastically increase domestic oil and gas exploration, production, and export.

Based on a decade of tracking and analyzing corporate climate lobbying in the US and beyond, this briefing offers three key findings on US corporate advocacy that are likely to inform climate policy development and delay under the new administration.

1. Fossil Fuels Move from Defense to Attack

Between 2016 and 2020, the Trump administration pursued a robust agenda of rolling back climate regulations. During this time, the most entrenched fossil fuel interests shifted from a defensive to offensive strategy, openly calling for regulatory repeal. Already, in 2024, there is evidence of the most negative fossil fuel interests preparing to repeat these strategies.

Before President Trump assumed office in 2017, industry had filed a number of lawsuits against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its climate-related regulations. The US Chamber of Commerce, for example, led a suit against the Clean Power Plan introduced under the Obama administration. At least seven major US associations—the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Auto Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and American Petroleum Institute (API)—then supported the administration’s move to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with a weaker alternative. Industry advocated through a range of channels, from formal written comments during the required feedback periods to press releases and policy papers laying out their positions, meetings with policymakers, advertising, and other means.

As of 2024, there are currently a number of legal filings by industry associations against US climate-related regulations, including but not limited to automotive regulations (by the API), the power plant regulations (by the Edison Electric Institute), and the SEC’s climate disclosure rule (by the Business Roundtable). Just as in 2017, many of the most entrenched fossil fuel interest groups are likely to shift their attention from lawsuits to rollbacks as the administration begins the process of repeal, which requires a period of public consultation for each regulation. They will likely issue various statements and comments urging and supporting these moves.

• On November 12th, the American Petroleum Institute released its “5 Point Policy Roadmap to Secure American Energy Leadership and Help Reduce Inflation” specifying a series of actions that Trump’s administration can take to roll back climate policy and facilitate the expansion of fossil fuels.
  
  

However, obstructive corporate entities do not represent the entire US economy. InfluenceMap has tracked significant corporate support for key policies at risk of rollback, including the clean tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.

• Leading up to the passage of the IRA, two-thirds of all evidence of corporate advocacy on the climate and energy components of the bill was supportive, endorsing the incentives for the energy transition. Support came not only from clear renewable interests but transitioning sectors in the “partially aligned” category flagged in the section above: these are companies with a growing stake in the climate policy agenda. (Even some oil and gas companies supported the IRA, due to its subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS). InfluenceMap has previously analyzed corporate CCS advocacy here).
• On automotive policy, a wide group of companies—Cummins, Daimler, PACCAR, General Motors, Stellantis, Volvo Group, Hino Motors (a Toyota subsidiary), and Navistar—have committed to comply with the California standards irrespective of whether they are rolled back. The auto and trucking industry’s agreements with California regulators appear to indicate a disconnect between industry interests and the incoming administration’s stated desire to roll back road transport regulations.
• While the most negative interests, including powerful fossil fuel industry associations, will support regulatory repeal and IRA rollback (and have already begun to do so), the administration may not see such clear-cut support from the rest of the corporate economy.
  

2. Heavy advocacy on permitting and infrastructure, particularly gas

Based on analysis contained in InfluenceMap’s US platform, when looking across federal and state policies, the areas of climate policy that have attracted the most corporate advocacy are permitting reform and automotive regulations. Permitting reform in particular has seen engagement from a wide array of entities at the federal level, from utilities and clean energy industry associations calling for improved transmission infrastructure to fossil fuel companies and industry associations calling for quicker approvals of liquefied natural gas export projects.

A focus on the energy mix and gas-related infrastructure extends into the states. In a stated effort to facilitate a successful energy transition and mitigate costs, many US states have initiated proceedings open to public comment on the future of fossil gas, including Massachusetts (2020), New York (2020), Minnesota (2021), Nevada (2021), Oregon (2021), Washington (2021), Rhode Island (2022), New Jersey (2023), and Illinois (2024), as well as the District of Columbia (2020). These investigative proceedings have laid the groundwork for legislative action to meet state-level greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

• Public comments have revealed varying degrees of support for the phaseout of fossil gas in the energy mix. Across every state where these proceedings have been introduced, utilities have responded with concerns regarding grid reliability, transmission capacity, and costs to consumers. WEC Energy Group, for example, has submitted several comments on the Illinois Future of Gas docket, including a May 2024 submission promoting the “crucial role” of fossil gas in the state’s pursuit of net zero emissions. In its comments, the company suggested that “forced electrification” would inhibit the competitiveness of the state’s economy, deterring the growth of the manufacturing sector in industries with high energy demand, particularly those related to technology development. Positive advocacy by utilities has focused on improving energy efficiency, rather than transitioning away from fossil fuels. In April 2024 comments, Ameren Corporation called for measures to enhance efficiency throughout Illinois’ energy distribution systems that would allow for “dual-fuel utilities to meet their natural gas energy efficiency goals while recognizing the role electric focused energy efficiency programs can play in decarbonization.”
• The consultations allow some degree of optimism for state-level energy transitions. In December 2023, Massachusetts became the first state to issue an order through its Department of Public Utilities “dissuading” gas customer expansion, and calling for decarbonization of heating through mechanisms such as targeted electrification, networked geothermal, and renewable hydrogen. The decision came despite advocacy by utilities such as National Grid, which stated in January 2023 comments that “electricity alone will not be enough to decarbonize heating systems in a region that experiences as much cold weather as New England,” and advocated for renewable natural gas to be included in future regulations on clean heat. Similarly, Berkshire Gas Company, a subsidiary of Avangrid, submitted May 2023 comments on the state’s proposed Clean Heat Standard advocating that regulations continue to provide for the use of gas-powered components as well as electrification of heating.
  
  

In 2025 and the years following, issues of permitting, infrastructure, and the future of gas are likely to remain a focus of corporate advocacy. Both clean and fossil fuel entities will advocate to advance their aims at the federal and state level.

3. Strategic use of narratives to maintain public support and secure wins

During the first Trump administration, InfluenceMap analysis revealed the vast amount of time and resources that fossil fuel companies invest in reaching the public to protect their “social license” or public reputation. Going into 2025, corporate entities opposed to climate action will no longer need to convince federal policymakers of their aims, as they have a supportive administration that has pledged to protect their interests. Instead, they may turn attention to influencing the public.

Narrative messaging is a critical part of corporate influence regardless of the political environment. It is not uncommon to see overlaps in corporate messaging and policymaker messaging (a trend observed in the EU and Australia, for example. In the US, recent analysis finds a clear overlap between industry messaging and policymaker messaging, particularly on the issue of automotive regulations. In 2024 alone, there were over 100 instances of corporate interests centering the “consumer choice” narrative in their public advocacy on autos. Entities levelling this message ranged from the nonprofit Consumer Energy Alliance; automotive companies like Hyundai and Toyota; fossil fuel companies like Williams Companies, ExxonMobil, and Kinder Morgan; to industry associations like the American Gas Association and AFPM. Non-exhaustive examples are below:

• The API’s "5 Point Policy Roadmap" urges the incoming Trump administration to repeal transport regulations, specifically citing the need to “protect consumer choice.” It has issued the same message before: in September 2024, it applauded a House resolution to prevent EPA’s light- and medium-duty tailpipe emissions rule, citing the idea of a “vehicle mandate that takes choices away from American consumers.” 
• The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) began an ad campaign in August 2024 criticizing Kamala Harris’ support for EV “mandates” and calling on Congress to overturn the EPA’s regulation in order to “protect consumer choice.” It reiterated the argument of consumer choice in its November 2024 press acknowledgement of the US election results.
• In early November 2024, Toyota Motor advocated for the incoming administration to overturn federal GHG emissions standards and replace them with rules that “promote consumer choice.”
• The Alliance for Automotive Innovation also appeared critical of California’s emissions standards in a November 2024 letter to Mr. Trump, stressing a need for regulations that “preserve consumer choice.”
  
  

As reported by Politico in October, the issue of personal freedom and choice on autos was a key point of debate before the election in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. One campaign ad running in the weeks leading up to the election said: “Attention auto workers: Kamala Harris wants to end all gas powered cars. Crazy, but true!” Another ad in Pennsylvania said, “Vice President Kamala Harris wanted to end sales of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, taking away our choices.” Messaging by the more negative auto industry interests and anti-EV candidates was extremely aligned.

Recognizing industry narratives is a critical component of any action to confront industry influence over climate policy, particularly given that many fossil fuel interests are likely to publicly position themselves as proponents of climate action leading up to and throughout the new administration. However, as proven by the above results, top-line PR from companies likely seeking to paint a positive image may not necessarily come with science-aligned climate policy advocacy. InfluenceMap analysis regularly finds a gap between the positive top-line messaging of corporate interests and their actual policy engagement.

• Following the US election, ExxonMobil (Exxon) called on President-elect Trump to stay in the Paris Agreement. However, in the same communication, it criticized the climate measures passed under the Biden administration. Exxon has a low Organization Score of 49% in InfluenceMap’s system, indicating climate advocacy that is misaligned with science-based policy guidance.
• Cheniere Energy, which is investing in LNG projects and negatively engages on climate-related policy in the US, also opposed US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement after the election and stated support for methane regulation in a statement to Reuters.
• While Cheniere’s statement opposing methane rule withdrawal is positive, the company did not say anything about the other policies and regulations under threat, nor did Exxon.

The policy and political influence described above will be conducted by a range of entities across the economy, from power-providing utilities to oil and gas majors, to oil and gas astroturf groups masquerading as community interest groups. However, in the US and globally, InfluenceMap generally finds that companies tend to outsource their most regressive positions to powerful industry associations, which provide cover from scrutiny and reputational risk as they engage on the companies’ behalf. Going forward into 2025, industry associations are likely to carry forward the obstructive and negative advocacy that will lead directly to a spike in US emissions.

The graphic below captures the industry associations that, even before the election, have actively sought to overturn, weaken, or litigate against federal climate action. Carbon Brief analysis finds that the rollback of major climate regulations (for autos, power plants, and methane) along with the Inflation Reduction Act would lead to a total increase of 4bn tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent between 2025 and 2030. The shaded groups have engaged negatively on all four policy areas captured. (Notably, because the Carbon Brief analysis does not estimate the effects of increased fossil fuel production, the emissions spike resulting from the Trump administration’s policies will be even greater than 4bn).

Key Actors in State-Level Climate Lobbying

According to IPCC science, every fraction of a degree matters in preventing warming. In line with this, every possible action to reduce emissions in the US (and globally) must be realized. The 2023 update of the Rhodium Group’s “Taking Stock” report found that an all-of-government approach, combining new federal climate measures with an increase in policy ambition from leading states, would have delivered the necessary emissions reductions for the US to meet its 2030 climate target under the Paris Agreement. Federal policy alone was not forecast as sufficient to meet the country’s targets. Over the next four years, ambition on climate policy in the US will now occur at the subnational level.

InfluenceMap’s US platform provides information on trends and key actors at the state level, summarized below.

• While utilities engage on federal climate policy, they are unsurprisingly active in the states where they operate as well. The sector shows an extremely wide range of advocacy positions, from highly negative to nearly science-aligned. Each state page on the US platform highlights the largest investor-owned utility (IOU) in that state: for example, as the largest IOU in Texas, Sempra Energy appears at the top of the Texas page.
• InfluenceMap assessed the Chamber of Commerce or primary business league in each of the five largest states and found that all five groups show highly negative climate policy advocacy. Like federal cross-sector associations, these industry associations represent companies across the state’s economy. They engage on all climate policy strands, from power sector regulation to automotive standards to “preemption” bills barring cities from introducing certain climate regulations. Each state page on the US platform highlights its Chamber of Commerce: for example, the California Chamber of Commerce appears at the top of the California page.
• Even national industry associations engage on state-level policy. The American Gas Association (AGA), US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Alliance for Automotive Innovation, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and many national industry associations all advocate regularly on state policy. Many of these groups, for example, have lobbied to prevent spread of the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) standards adopted in California to other states. Profiles on all industry associations are available here, and specific policy trackers such as the California Advanced Clean Cars II offer summaries of corporate advocacy on that policy.
• On the other hand, more positively-engaging players including but not limited to technology companies, other large renewable energy consumers, and large employers in US states may have significant sway over the development of climate policy at the state level.
  
  

The US platform will expand over time, including to additional states, in line with the demand for increased analysis of subnational corporate climate policy influence.