Trump's Climate Change Denial and Republican Voters Who Bear Its Costs

Oct 15

22 min read

Dr Alan Sanderson

October 2026

Abstract

This paper examines why Republican voters support Donald Trump’s climate change denial despite the risks it poses to their homes, livelihoods and communities. Drawing on Weber’s forms of rationality and Tocqueville’s account of democratic conformity, it distinguishes the reasoning that sustains political allegiance from the evidence required to justify environmental policy. Through a critical synthesis of climate science, public opinion research, policy documents and disaster studies, the paper traces the continuity of fossil fuel promotion and environmental deregulation across Trump’s two presidencies. It argues that economic insecurity, cultural identity, selective trust and competing political priorities help explain support without establishing the validity of denial. Evidence from Appalachian flooding illustrates how material vulnerability can coexist with Republican loyalty, while preserving distinctions between disaster impacts, climate attribution and individual voting behaviour. The analysis identifies wider consequences through weakened scientific institutions, reduced international cooperation, cumulative emissions and ecological damage. It concludes that Trump’s responsibility concerns foreseeable, avoidable risks intensified by policy choices. An effective response must combine accurate public information and emissions reduction with secure employment, affordable energy and accessible disaster protection, recognising that safeguarding working communities and addressing climate change are mutually reinforcing obligations of democratic government and leadership.

Introduction

Donald Trump’s climate change denial raises a question that cannot be answered by calling his supporters foolish. Why do people support a leader who dismisses a danger that threatens their homes, livelihoods and communities? The contradiction is especially troubling in working-class areas of the USA where severe weather can destroy a family’s security in a matter of hours. Yet understanding it requires us to distinguish the reasoning that sustains political loyalty from the reasoning needed to establish what is happening to the climate.

Different forms of rationality help explain how a policy can serve a company’s financial interests, a politician’s electoral interests and a voter’s sense of belonging while exposing society to greater harm. Explanation does not amount to justification. A belief can be comforting, and a political allegiance understandable, without either providing a sound basis for environmental policy. The central charge against Trump is that he has used presidential authority to weaken the response to a well-established danger, while presenting that retreat as protection for the people who will bear its costs.

The record extends across both of Trump’s Presidencies. Decisions made in 2017 established a pattern of favouring fossil-fuel development and challenging environmental restraints. His second administration, which started in 2025, renewed that approach and dismantled further safeguards. The environmental consequences must be assessed carefully: Trump did not create global warming, and no credible argument can attribute every disaster to him. His responsibility lies in decisions that increase avoidable risks and make effective collective action harder.

What rationality means in this argument

We often use “rational” to mean sensible, informed or simply agreeable to us. These meanings should be separated. Theoretical rationality concerns what there is reason to believe. Practical rationality concerns what there is reason to do. A person may reason effectively about getting a job or winning an election while reasoning poorly about the evidence for a physical process. Conversely, someone can understand climate science and still make political choices that do little to address it.

Stephen Kalberg’s analysis of Max Weber distinguishes four types of rationality: practical, theoretical, formal, and substantive.

Practical rationality focuses on calculating useful responses to everyday circumstances.
Theoretical rationality involves understanding reality through conceptual thinking.
Formal rationality organises decisions based on universally applied rules and calculations.
Substantive rationality evaluates conduct against a specific set of core values.

Crucially, these are analytical distinctions rather than fixed personality types or a moral hierarchy where one category elevates an individual over another (Kalberg, 1980).

Applied to climate politics, these distinctions reveal how people answer different questions. For instance, consider a worker who believes that environmental regulation threatens the only dependable employment available locally. Therefore, supporting a politician promising to defend that employment can seem practical. That choice does not establish that climate change is a hoax. It establishes that the worker fears a particular economic outcome. The scientific claim and the political judgement must be tested separately, rather than allowing anxiety about the latter to settle the former.

Formal calculation also needs scrutiny. A company may find that reducing compliance costs improves its balance sheet. The calculation can be accurate while excluding costs borne by neighbours or taxpayers. Substantive judgment asks whether those excluded costs are acceptable and whose interests should count. An efficient way to achieve a narrow objective is not necessarily a defensible way to govern a country.

Herbert Simon’s work on rational choice adds another important qualification. People have limited information and limited capacity to consider every alternative. Decision-making, therefore, takes place under constraints, rather than through the exhaustive calculations imagined by an ideal model (Simon, 1955). In politics, reliance on trusted sources is unavoidable. The difficulty is determining whether those sources deserve the trust invested in them.

For climate policy, these distinctions lead to a demanding standard. A government must establish the facts as accurately as possible, assess workable responses and judge how their consequences are distributed. Trump’s denial weakens the first requirement and thereby distorts the others. Political convenience becomes a substitute for inquiry. What sounds reasonable within an electoral campaign can become reckless when applied to an atmosphere that does not respond to campaign promises.

The climate evidence that political loyalty cannot overturn

The basic scientific finding is clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Its assessment also explains that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions are closely related to warming and that stabilising human-caused temperature increases requires net-zero carbon dioxide emissions, alongside action on other greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2021).

NASA identifies independent lines of evidence, including rising temperatures, retreating glaciers, shrinking ice sheets and changes in the oceans. These observations reinforce one another. Climate science does not rest on one weather station or one computer model (NASA, n.d.). Scientists continue to investigate regional effects and future risks, but uncertainty about particulars does not invalidate the established explanation of the broader trend.

The World Meteorological Organisation reported that the global mean near-surface temperature in 2024 was approximately 1.55°C above the 1850–1900 average. A single year above 1.5°C does not itself mean that the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature threshold has been crossed. It is nevertheless a serious warning, accompanied by evidence of exceptional ocean heat and rising seas (World Meteorological Organisation, 2025).

Trump has responded by attacking the credibility of the problem. At the United Nations in September 2025, he called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” (Associated Press, 2025a). A president may reasonably question the design of a particular tax, subsidy or regulation. Dismissing the underlying danger avoids the harder task of proposing a credible response.

These statements matter because they influence how supporters understand the choices before them. If the danger is fabricated, restraint appears unnecessary and scientific warnings can be recast as interference. Denial thus offers a political benefit: it removes the apparent need to explain who should act, how quickly and at whose expense. The physical problem remains, while public discussion is diverted into arguments about the alleged dishonesty of those describing it.

The First Trump Presidency established the pattern

Oliver Milman’s 2017 reporting identified five early areas of concern: the appointment of Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed changes to the agency’s resources and work, the attack on the Clean Power Plan, efforts to expand access to public lands and waters, and support for oil pipelines. Read today, the article supplies a historical starting point for understanding the continuity in Trump’s approach (Milman, 2017).

Pruitt had challenged EPA pollution rules while serving as Oklahoma’s attorney general. As an administrator, he disputed the central role of carbon dioxide in contemporary warming. So, appointing him as leader of the Agency signalled more than an ordinary disagreement over implementation. It posed a challenge to established climate understanding inside the institution responsible for addressing its consequences (Milman, 2017).

Trump’s March 2017 executive order directed reviews of policies regarded as burdens on energy development and specifically targeted the Clean Power Plan for review. It also directed the withdrawal of federal guidance on considering greenhouse-gas emissions in environmental reviews and action to lift the federal coal-leasing moratorium (White House, 2017). The administration’s preferred framing was that environmental restraints obstructed prosperity.

The choice of framing was consequential. Regulation was presented through its visible burdens on producers, while the benefits of avoiding pollution received less attention. The question “What does this requirement cost a company?” displaced the broader question “What does the activity cost society?” That shift encouraged a narrow form of calculation in which environmental damage could be treated as outside the decision.

Milman also described efforts to reconsider protections affecting federal lands and waters and to advance the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Some items in his account were proposals or reviews at that stage, rather than completed changes. Keeping that distinction matters: an intention to dismantle a safeguard, the administrative process for doing so and a legally effective repeal are different events (Milman, 2017).

The pattern, nevertheless, was evident. Climate concerns were subordinated to an agenda centred on extraction and removing restrictions. These decisions made the direction of policy concrete. Fossil fuels were not merely part of the existing energy system; their continued development became a political commitment around which the administration organised its actions.

That commitment should not be confused with a guarantee of secure employment. A president can encourage investment and alter regulation, but cannot control every market force or technological change affecting an industry. Communities dependent on established work need an honest assessment of their future. A promise that abandoning environmental restraints will preserve their livelihoods indefinitely can postpone the preparation they require.

The Second Trump Presidency deepened the retreat

On 20 January 2025, Trump again ordered the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and directed an end to associated financial commitments. UNFCCC records that withdrawal took effect on 27 January 2026 (White House, 2025a; UNFCCC, n.d.b). The agreement has weaknesses and national commitments remain inadequate, but leaving it does not remove the danger it seeks to address.

Paris provides a framework for countries to submit plans, report progress and strengthen their responses. Its value does not depend on a claim that it can compel perfect compliance (UNFCCC, n.d.a). Withdrawal weakens a channel of cooperation and accountability. It also sends a signal that a major participant is less willing to accept responsibility for a shared problem.

Trump’s accompanying order, Unleashing American Energy, directed reviews of regulatory constraints and an expedited restart of reviews for liquefied natural gas export applications (White House, 2025c). Another memorandum withdrew offshore areas from new wind leasing and paused specified federal approvals for wind projects pending review (White House, 2025b). Together, they showed the preference for fossil-fuel development and the obstacles placed before an important cleaner alternative.

Renewable energy projects should undergo a serious environmental assessment. Wildlife, habitats and local communities deserve protection. Those considerations should also apply to competing energy sources. An administration that invokes environmental caution against wind while promoting expanded extraction must explain the consistency of its standards. Selective concern is a weak foundation for claims of responsible stewardship.

In February 2026, the EPA finalised the rescission of the 2009 greenhouse-gas endangerment finding and repealed federal greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and engines covered by the rule (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2026). The legal scope of this action must be described precisely. It should not be treated as automatically repealing every environmental protection or every power-plant rule; nevertheless, its direct removal of important vehicle emissions safeguards is serious enough.

The distinction between law and science is fundamental. An agency can change a rule or its interpretation of statutory authority. It cannot alter the physical behaviour of greenhouse gases. The consequences of emissions persist whether or not the government requires their control. Advertising deregulation as a victory, therefore, leaves unanswered the question of where its environmental liabilities will fall.

Why do some voters accept the reassurance?

Republican voters are not a uniform body, and the evidence does not support describing every Trump supporter as a climate change denier. Research published by Yale and George Mason Universities in 2017 found that 49% of Trump voters believed global warming was happening and 47% supported American participation in an international agreement to limit it. These are historical findings, rather than estimates of opinion today, but they show that support for Trump never implied complete agreement with his climate position (Leiserowitz et al., 2017).

More recent evidence reveals a substantial partisan divide. In Pew Research Centre’s March 2026 survey, 21% of Republicans and “Republican leaners” attributed warming mostly to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats and “Democratic leaners”. Conservative Republicans were less likely to do so than moderate and liberal Republicans. Younger Republicans were more likely than older Republicans to recognise human causation (Kennedy and Pula, 2026).

Such findings cannot tell us what each voter privately thinks or whether an individual knowingly accepts something false. They also do not establish that all respondents are working class. However, they demonstrate that political affiliation is associated with markedly different assessments of a question on which scientific evidence is strong. Explaining that difference requires attention to trust and identity as well as access to information.

Kahan et al. (2012) found that greater scientific literacy and numeracy did not simply bring people’s climate-risk perceptions closer together. Their results supported the importance of cultural commitments in shaping judgement. People can use reasoning skills to defend conclusions associated with their identities. Intelligence alone does not ensure that evidence will be assessed impartially.

This helps explain how denial can appear attractive. If climate action is associated with institutions a voter distrusts, accepting the scientific explanation may feel like conceding authority to political opponents. Rejecting it can feel like defending independence. In that situation, the credibility of the messenger becomes entangled with the credibility of the evidence. Trump’s rhetoric offers a ready-made account in which dismissal expresses loyalty and resistance.

This is an interpretation of a plausible mechanism, not a diagnosis of every supporter. It also describes a human vulnerability extending beyond one party. The criticism becomes particularly relevant when a leader encourages followers to treat consistent scientific findings as deception while accepting his own unsupported assurances. Scepticism then becomes selective: demanding proof from opponents while giving an ally the exceptional benefit of the doubt.

There are also limits to claims about Trump’s influence. Sun, Shen and Kejriwal (2025) examined climate change beliefs around his first inauguration and found a more complicated pattern than a simple conversion of Republicans to denial. Republican beliefs were largely unchanged, while stronger pro-climate change beliefs among Democrats and independents contributed to the widening divide. Trump operates within an existing political culture as well as influencing it.

Voting itself further complicates the picture. A supporter may accept climate science but prioritise immigration, taxes or other concerns. That does not make the vote a scientific judgement. It does mean that an acknowledged danger can receive little political weight. A government can gain permission to weaken safeguards through indifference and competing priorities, as well as through outright disbelief.

Economic anxiety and the limits of short-term reasoning

Pew’s December 2024 research found that 56% of Republicans and “Republican leaners” thought climate policies usually hurt the economy (Kennedy and Tyson, 2024b). For someone facing insecure work or rising bills, that expectation can be decisive. The cost feared today feels immediate; the benefit of avoiding future damage may appear uncertain or remote.

The practical reasoning is understandable. A household cannot meet this month’s rent with a promise of prosperity decades away. Communities that have experienced industrial decline are entitled to demand more than optimistic language about new jobs. They need work that is accessible, dependable and adequately paid. Climate change advocates weaken their own case when they overlook those requirements.

Yet it does not follow that rejecting climate science protects those communities. A job at risk from economic change and a home at risk from flooding are both material concerns. Treating one as real and the other as propaganda provides a distorted account of the household’s position. A credible policy must address their relationship instead of asking workers to choose which threat they are permitted to acknowledge.

Nor is Republican opinion uniformly opposed to practical measures. Pew’s March 2024 review reported that 77% supported requiring oil and gas companies to seal methane leaks, and 54% supported American participation in international efforts to reduce climate impacts. Only 12% identified climate change as a top national priority in the January survey cited by that review (Kennedy and Tyson, 2024a). Specific action can attract support even where the wider issue remains politically marginal.

Although the result of observations about community dynamics made nearly two hundred years ago, Tocqueville’s work still provides a useful historical analysis of this problem. In “Democracy in America,” he examined both the strengths of American political life and the social pressures that could restrict independent judgement in a country where the concept of equality is paramount. In this scenario, he observed how people could become attached to opinions partly because those opinions were their own (Tocqueville, 1835). Thus, his account invites questions about belonging and conviction,

Tocqueville argued that democracy can weaken independent thought when citizens reject traditional authorities but defer uncritically to public opinion. This “tyranny of the majority” suppresses dissent through social exclusion rather than physical force (Democracy in America, vol. I, part II, ch. 7; vol.11, part 1, chs. 1-2).

Applied to Trump’s climate change denial—including his dismissal of climate change as a “con job” in his 2025 UN address—this suggests how loyalty to a political community can make rejecting scientific expertise feel like independent thinking while discouraging scrutiny of the community’s own beliefs.

The modern concern is that independence becomes confused with refusing correction. Changing one’s mind in response to evidence is an exercise of judgement. It is not surrender to an enemy. When political culture makes such revision humiliating, supporters may find it easier to reinterpret uncomfortable events than to reassess the leader who reassured them.

This is where, apparently, practical reasoning can become self-defeating. Defending an established livelihood is a legitimate objective. Accepting a false description of environmental risks can undermine the very security being defended. It leaves people less able to weigh their options and makes it harder to demand protection from leaders claiming to act on their behalf.

Fossil fuel interests and the distribution of benefits

The economic interests behind continued fossil-fuel dependence are easier to establish than claims about any individual’s hidden motives. Companies holding producing assets, reserves or associated infrastructure have an interest in maintaining demand and avoiding costs. Policy can improve their commercial position through access to resources, favourable treatment or fewer compliance requirements. These mechanisms do not require us to assume that every project will be profitable.

An investor can also gain from expectations. If the government signals that a business will face fewer constraints, investors may expect stronger future earnings. But profits depend on prices, demand, financing and operational performance. More production can lower prices as well as expand sales. It would therefore be careless to suggest that every pro-fossil-fuel policy automatically enriches every participant.

The distinction between campaign support and personal enrichment is equally important. Reuters reported in May 2024 that leaders of major oil companies would host a Houston fundraising event for Trump, based on an invitation it had seen (Reuters, 2024). This establishes an organised connection between important industry figures and political funding. It does not, by itself, prove that a particular decision increased Trump’s personal fortune or establish an unlawful exchange.

The documented alignment remains politically significant. Beneficiaries of a preferred policy direction help finance the candidate promoting it. The public should scrutinise that relationship and ask whether decisions serve social welfare or disproportionately favour those with access and resources. An argument based on observable benefits and political relationships is stronger than an allegation of private profit that the evidence cannot substantiate.

The distinction between a worker and an owner must also remain visible. Both may depend on an industry, but their exposure differs. A company can hold several assets, attract capital or change its investments. A worker may depend on one local employer and own a home that cannot easily be sold. Describing their interests as identical can hide the vulnerability of the community in whose name a policy is defended.

This is the ethical weakness of a narrow financial calculation. Savings accrue to identifiable firms while increased risks are spread across households and future generations. Therefore, costs do not disappear over time, so a government claiming to defend ordinary people must account for those transferred burdens, rather than counting only the benefits publicised by producers.

Communities harmed by the dangers their leader dismisses

Eastern Kentucky illustrates how severe weather and economic vulnerability can combine in communities with strong support for Trump. The National Weather Service’s assessment recorded 43 deaths in the July 2022 floods and described the difficulties created by limited resources, flood-prone valleys and inadequate communications coverage (National Weather Service, 2023). Such conditions make escape, warning and recovery harder.

Dixon and Shelton (2023) estimated that approximately 9,000 homes were damaged and nearly 22,000 residents were affected. Six in ten households with damaged homes reported annual incomes below $30,000. Estimated rebuilding costs ranged from roughly $450 million to $950 million, depending on the extent of relocation to safer sites. Breathitt, Knott, Letcher and Perry counties experienced much of the housing damage.

Official 2024 election records show substantial support for Trump in Breathitt County (Kentucky State Board of Elections, 2024). These figures cannot establish how each victim voted. Nor does low income provide a complete definition of working-class identity. The evidence nevertheless demonstrates that serious material vulnerability can coexist with strong electoral support for a president who dismisses climate change.

The Kentucky case should not be made to prove more than it does. The sources cited here establish the disaster’s consequences and the population’s vulnerability, rather than assigning a quantified climate-change contribution to that flood. Weather hazards, geography, housing and resources all influence losses. Keeping those factors distinct makes the argument more credible.

For Hurricane Helene in 2024, event-specific attribution evidence is available. World Weather Attribution estimated that human-caused warming made the assessed rainfall about 10% heavier. The three-day rainfall maximum in the inland study region, encompassing the Southern and Central Appalachians, was estimated to have become about 70% more likely (World Weather Attribution, 2024). This was a rapid attribution study using observations and models; its estimates do not assign every loss to warming.

The relevance is that climate change can worsen a hazard whose consequences are determined partly by existing inequality. Additional rainfall can become an overwhelming burden where households have little financial room to recover. Political affiliation provides no physical protection. The same storm can damage the property of people who accept science and those who reject it.

There is no justification for suggesting that voters deserve such losses. Children, non-voters and political opponents share the damage, and responsibility for public safety belongs to the government. The appropriate question is what leaders owe vulnerable communities. A reasonable answer to this question is that they should give an honest description of danger, effective preparation and policies that reduce avoidable harm.

Suffering also does not automatically change a person’s political explanation. People may acknowledge that floods or heat have worsened while remaining sceptical of particular climate change policies. Others may interpret a disaster through familiar local causes. Direct experience is important, but identifying a changing risk requires comparison over time and attention to broader evidence. Recovery and public understanding must therefore proceed together.

Denial also weakens the conditions for informed decisions

The information available to citizens is part of the problem. In July 2025, Associated Press reported that websites hosting national climate assessments had become unavailable, making established information harder for the public and local authorities to access (Associated Press, 2025b). Losing public access is not the same as proving that every underlying dataset has been destroyed. The practical loss of an accessible resource is nevertheless significant.

Sethi’s (2025) commentary documented the removal of climate-related material and discussed proposed cuts to scientific capacity. Proposed budgets must be distinguished from enacted cuts, and concerns about future forecasting cannot be presented as a measured cause of particular deaths; however, the underlying issue is how changes to research and public information affect communities’ ability to make informed choices.

While Stephen Kalberg has outlined four distinct types of rationality, people in this scenario will default to a strict cost-benefit analysis. Then, the pressure on the individual worsens if reliable data is actively withheld. Whether a resident is choosing a home or a local council is planning infrastructure, they need clear, practical evidence about future risks. In this scenario, because vulnerable communities cannot afford to hire their own experts, the government must step in to make this vital information publicly available.

Attacks on scientific institutions can also create a circular defence of denial. The leader questions their reliability, reduces their public visibility and then invites supporters to rely on political assurances instead. Even where the full institutional consequences remain contested, the direction is troubling. Public authorities should improve the conditions for independent judgement, not make inconvenient knowledge harder to use.

Environmental consequences that outlast elections

The environmental danger is cumulative. An administration can delay action for a few years while encouraging investments that operate for decades. The IPCC’s mitigation assessment warns that continued installation of unabated fossil-fuel infrastructure locks in emissions (IPCC, 2022). Once money and employment depend on continued operation, reversing direction becomes politically and financially harder.

Carbon Brief’s pre-election analysis estimated that a Trump victory and associated rollbacks could add four billion tonnes of US greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 compared with the continuation of Biden’s plans. Whilst this was a conditional estimate, not a measured total or a complete assessment of every anticipated policy intervention (Carbon Brief, 2024), it does illustrate how specific actions can radically increase emissions that could have been avoided.

Even if emissions decline, a government can still leave them higher than they would otherwise have been. Progress, driven by markets or technology, does not automatically vindicate policies that obstructed it. Responsibility must be assessed against plausible alternatives, with uncertainty acknowledged. The environmental importance of delay is the additional burden left in the atmosphere.

The consequences extend through the living world. NOAA explains that absorbed carbon dioxide changes the chemistry of the oceans, lowering pH and affecting organisms that build shells and skeletons (NOAA, n.d.b). Climate policy therefore concerns more than surface temperatures. Emissions also alter conditions within marine ecosystems on which other species and human livelihoods depend.

NOAA reports that bleaching-level heat stress affected approximately 84.4% of the world’s coral reef area between January 2023 and September 2025. This does not mean that all affected coral died (NOAA, n.d.a). The IPCC’s 1.5°C assessment projected a further decline of 70–90% in coral reefs at that warming level, with losses exceeding 99% at 2°C (IPCC, 2018). Small differences in global temperature can therefore have very large ecological implications.

Human welfare is inseparable from those environmental conditions. The World Health Organisation identifies risks through heat, food, water, disease and disruption of health systems, with disadvantaged communities particularly vulnerable (World Health Organisation, 2023). The costs of climate change are consequently part of the costs of everyday life. They cannot sensibly be excluded from an economic argument about protecting households.

The IPCC’s synthesis concludes that risks and losses increase with additional warming and that adaptation has limits (IPCC, 2023). Preparing for hazards is essential, but cannot justify indefinitely increasing them. Some losses cannot be repaired on a useful human timescale. Future administrations may restore a regulation; that does not mean they can promptly reverse the environmental consequences of its absence.

Trump is one contributor within this larger history. Other governments and industries bear responsibility, and the severity of future damage will depend on choices still to be made. That qualification does not absolve him. A leader can materially worsen a shared danger without controlling its entire course. His obligation is to reduce foreseeable harm within his power, rather than invoke other contributors as an excuse for inaction.

A rational response must protect livelihoods and the climate

A convincing alternative must address the practical concerns that denial exploits. People require affordable energy, reliable services and secure work. Climate policy will fail politically if those needs are dismissed. It will fail environmentally if they are used to excuse unlimited dependence on fuels that increase warming. The task is to meet material needs while reducing the damage associated with meeting them.

Cleaner energy cannot simply be assumed to be unaffordable. IRENA reported that 91% of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity in 2024 produced electricity more cheaply, on an all-inclusive cost basis, than the cheapest newly installed fossil-fuel alternative (IRENA, 2025). This is a global comparison of generation costs, not a complete account of every electricity system. Networks, reliability and storage remain important. They require planning rather than blanket dismissal of the technologies.

Protection for working communities should be concrete. Promises of new employment need to explain where jobs will be, what they will pay and whether local people can obtain them. Measures to reduce household energy costs must be usable by people with limited savings. Disaster protection must reach residents unable to relocate or finance major repairs. These are tests of whether a transition serves the people asked to support it.

Public communication also needs trusted relationships. Scientific findings should be explained in ways that connect to local circumstances, while people are allowed to question proposals without being treated as enemies. Respect does not require withholding criticism. It requires distinguishing a person’s understandable anxiety from a claim that fails the evidence. Accurate information and practical reassurance should reinforce one another.

The different forms of rationality then become useful standards for policy. Beliefs must be responsive to evidence. Decisions must be workable under real constraints. Financial calculations must acknowledge costs beyond the producer’s balance sheet. Judgements about acceptable risk must include people with little political influence and generations not yet able to vote. None of these requirements is satisfied by declaring the danger a deception.

This is why Trump’s climate denial deserves an indictment. His programme uses legitimate concerns about livelihoods to defend a response that leaves those livelihoods exposed. It aligns public power with continued fossil-fuel dependence while weakening safeguards and cooperation. The seriousness of the charge lies in the foreseeable consequences of those choices, rather than in speculation about every supporter’s intelligence or every politician’s private motives.

An informed democracy must be able to revise its choices when the evidence demands it. Voters can value their communities, resist unfair policies and still recognise climate change. Leaders can defend employment while taking responsibility for environmental danger. Trump has repeatedly encouraged the belief that these commitments are incompatible; however, the communities bearing the costs deserve a politics better capable of synthesising these challenges.

References

Associated Press (2025a) ‘In front of drowning nations, Trump calls climate change a “con job.” Here are the facts and context’, 23 September. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/5c033a24ec523a56f8244d85f3672eda (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Associated Press (2025b) ‘Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down’, 1 July. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/057cec699caef90832d8b10f21a6ffe8 (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Carbon Brief (2024) ‘Analysis: Trump election win could add 4bn tonnes to US emissions by 2030’, 6 March. Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-election-win-could-add-4bn-tonnes-to-us-emissions-by-2030/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Dixon, E. and Shelton, R. (2023) Housing damage from the 2022 Kentucky flood. Ohio River Valley Institute and Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, 21 February. Available at: https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Housing-Damage-from-KY-2022-Flood.pdf (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

IPCC (2018) ‘Summary for policymakers’, in Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

IPCC (2021) ‘Summary for policymakers’, in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

IPCC (2022) ‘Summary for policymakers’, in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

IPCC (2023) ‘Summary for policymakers’, in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

IRENA (2025) Renewable power generation costs in 2024. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.irena.org/Digital-Report/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2024 (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. and Mandel, G. (2012) ‘The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks’, Nature Climate Change, 2, pp. 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547.

Kalberg, S. (1980) ‘Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history’, American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), pp. 1145–1179. Available at: https://www.bu.edu/sociology/files/2010/03/Weberstypes.pdf (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Kennedy, B. and Pula, I. (2026) ‘Americans on what causes climate change: Human activity or natural patterns?’, Pew Research Center, 28 May. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2026/05/28/americans-on-what-causes-climate-change-human-activity-or-natural-patterns/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Kennedy, B. and Tyson, A. (2024a) ‘How Republicans view climate change and energy issues’, Pew Research Center, 1 March. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Kennedy, B. and Tyson, A. (2024b) ‘How Americans view climate change and policies to address the issue’, Pew Research Center, 9 December. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/12/09/how-americans-view-climate-change-and-policies-to-address-the-issue/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Kentucky State Board of Elections (2024) 2024 general election results. Available at: https://elect.ky.gov/results/2020-2029/Pages/2024.aspx (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Cutler, M. and Rosenthal, S. (2017) Trump voters and global warming. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Available at: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/trump-voters-global-warming/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Milman, O. (2017) ‘The five worst things Donald Trump has done on climate change – so far’, The Guardian, 1 June (first published 31 May). Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/donald-trump-worst-things-climate-change-environment (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

NASA (n.d.) ‘Evidence’. Available at: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

National Weather Service (2023) July 2022 significant river/flash flood in southeastern Kentucky: Service assessment. Kansas City, MO: National Weather Service, Central Region Headquarters. Available at: https://www.weather.gov/media/publications/assessments/July_2022_Significant_River_Flash_Flood_SE_KY.pdf (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

NOAA (n.d.a) ‘Current global bleaching: Status update and data submission’, Coral Reef Watch. Available at: https://www.coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/research/coral_bleaching_report.php (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

NOAA (n.d.b) ‘What is ocean acidification?’ Available at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Reuters (2024) ‘Oil executives to host Trump fundraiser in Houston’, 21 May. Investing.com. Available at: https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/oil-executives-to-host-trump-fundraiser-in-houston-3450874 (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Sethi, P. (2025) ‘Inside Trump’s campaign to censor climate science’, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 5 August. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/(Accessed: 5 October 2026).

Simon, H.A. (1955) ‘A behavioral model of rational choice’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), pp. 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852.

Sun, Y., Shen, K. and Kejriwal, M. (2025) ‘Backlash or reinforcement? Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration and shifting climate beliefs in the United States’, npj Climate Action, 4, article 26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00230-9.

Tocqueville, A. de (1835) Democracy in America. Vol. I. Translated by H. Reeve. London: Saunders and Otley. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

UNFCCC (n.d.a) ‘The Paris Agreement’. Available at: https://www.unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

UNFCCC (n.d.b) ‘United States of America’. Available at: https://unfccc.int/node/61231 (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

US Environmental Protection Agency (2026) ‘Final rule: Rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act’. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-rescission-greenhouse-gas-endangerment (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

White House (2017) ‘Presidential executive order on promoting energy independence and economic growth’, 28 March. Available at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

White House (2025a) ‘Putting America first in international environmental agreements’, 20 January. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

White House (2025b) ‘Temporary withdrawal of all areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from offshore wind leasing and review of the federal government’s leasing and permitting practices for wind projects’, 20 January. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/temporary-withdrawal-of-all-areas-on-the-outer-continental-shelf-from-offshore-wind-leasing-and-review-of-the-federal-governments-leasing-and-permitting-practices-for-wind-projects/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

White House (2025c) ‘Unleashing American energy’, 20 January. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

World Health Organization (2023) ‘Climate change’, 12 October. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

World Meteorological Organization (2025) State of the Global Climate 2024. Available at: https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-climate/state-of-global-climate-2024 (Accessed: 5 October 2026).

World Weather Attribution (2024) ‘Climate change key driver of catastrophic impacts of Hurricane Helene that devastated both coastal and inland communities’, 9 October. Available at: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-key-driver-of-catastrophic-impacts-of-hurricane-helene-that-devastated-both-coastal-and-inland-communities/ (Accessed: 5 October 2026).