You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A leaked internal memo reveals why the environmental group adopted President Trump’s new name.

The Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit, was told by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration it had to rename a major conservation program as the “Gulf of America” or else lose federal funding, according to a leaked internal memo reviewed by Heatmap News.
For the last week, the Nature Conservancy has been pilloried by figures in the climate and environmentalist community for changing the name of its conservation program in the Gulf of Mexico region to being a “Gulf of America” restoration program, brandishing what President Donald Trump declared on his first day in office would be the new official U.S. term for the body of water. Trump’s new name has become a First Amendment firestorm as news organizations find themselves split on whether to adopt the term and the White House is punishing outlets — including the Associated Press — for continuing to use the Gulf of Mexico.
We can now exclusively reveal why the Nature Conservancy adopted this fresh Trump branding: They were allegedly pressured into it.
Jennifer Morris, CEO of the Nature Conservancy, sent an email to all staff at the organization this morning stating that the organization’s conservation program in the Gulf of Mexico was renamed to Gulf of America “after receiving clear directives from a federal agency.” “Please know that we did not make this decision lightly,” Morris wrote. Attached to the email was staff guidance claiming the nonprofit “received specific direction from NOAA that we must change all references to the new nomenclature in association with our NOAA funded work in the Gulf.”
“For example, all maps, reports, and other deliverables must use ‘Gulf of America,’ the memo stated. “We have at least $156 million in active federal grants in the region, including $45 million from NOAA alone.’ Federal funding makes up most of the organization’s work in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the memo.
In addition, the Nature Conservancy has “been advised that new proposals in the Gulf for US federal grants must conform” to Trump’s executive order adopting “Gulf of America” as the official U.S. name for that body of water, the memo stated. State governors in the Gulf region in charge of “disseminating” remaining BP oil spill recovery funds have “followed suit in support of these nomenclature changes” and there is fear a “failure to adjust” could also “jeopardize” state funding.
“Ultimately, this decision was made after reviewing all the facts and looking at what the organization felt was best to ensure we can continue our conservation programs and support our teams on the ground,” the memo stated.
Historically, NOAA has been more insulated than other agencies from political pressures like this, which has helped it maintain a global reputation as a world-class scientific meteorological body.
This ordeal, however, echoes the one other time Trump seemed to put his thumb on NOAA’s scales — an incident best known as Sharpiegate. In 2019 Trump incorrectly proclaimed Hurricane Dorian was going to hit Alabama. He went so far as to draw on a giant map with a Sharpie in the White House to show his guestimated pathway for the storm. After the NOAA office in Alabama publicly sought to reassure residents that, no, a hurricane wasn’t on the way, Trump officials pressured NOAA into backing the president, leading to the agency issuing an unsigned statement backing the claim. An inspector general report – which Trump officials reportedly sought to obstruct from seeing the light of day – ultimately found the NOAA statement violated its scientific integrity policy.
If the Gulf of America is the beginning of NOAA subservience, I’m nervous to see what happens when Trump’s version of the agency – which any day now is expected to undergo mass layoffs – pivots to climate change and renewable energy.
The Nature Conservancy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “We can find no evidence of that, so far,” NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.
A conversation with Ella Nilsen — formerly of CNN, now with Echo Communications — about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
This week’s conversation is with Ella Nilsen, who recently left CNN as a climate reporter and is now a new vice president at energy and cleantech PR firm Echo Communications. Having worked on Capitol Hill alongside Nilsen, I knew her to be an exceptional reporter who asked hard questions of those in power on all sides. So when I found out she was taking her journalism hat off and putting the comms cap on, I wanted to do something you rarely get to do with one of your reporting peers: ask for her own opinion about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
Our chat was lightly edited for clarity.
What’s it like going from CNN and climate journalism to advising on communications in the energy sector, especially when it comes to clean tech in this fraught moment?
So before I covered climate and clean energy, I was a political reporter who covered campaign cycles and Capitol Hill for a while, and I was always interested in the nexus of politics and politics. I tried to make as much of my coverage about that. Politics is policy, and the other way around.
Being on the other side of it is, well, I know from my experience as a reporter what interests them. I’m trying to figure out ways to make sure when I’m bugging you all that the pitch lands, because hopefully it’ll be something people are interested in. Things are changing so fast. It’s a really fascinating time to be a reporter and be in the clean energy comms space.
Okay, but now that you’re in clean energy comms, how do you handicap the fight over developing these technologies? Who is winning, who is losing, and why?
I think it’s tough to call exact winners and losers right now because over the last few months, there have been so many new and interesting developments.
Look at the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, which has been getting involved in Republican primaries for Freedom Caucus members. There’s been this perception for a long time that the clean energy industry didn’t fare well in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fight. They had important wins while losing pretty key stuff. But there’s been this interesting reckoning within the industry, and even this last summer, where people are moving the ball forward in interesting ways. They’re trying to get involved in political fights with direct results.
What messages do these primaries send? On the one hand I can see there being political consequences but also, now, more solar energy money going into Republican politics has the anti-renewable folks saying they need to go harder at them. I’m curious how you see the energy fight landscape changing in light of these election results.
I think it shows the industry has some fight in it. What the Coalition would probably say is, they want to be lethal and this is political warfare. They’re trying to be taken seriously.
There is sort of this two-pronged strategy happening right now. Obviously Invest in Tomorrow has gotten a lot of press attention for their track record. There’s also within the industry an attempt to shape a public narrative around wind, solar, battery storage to combat misinformation, both through conventional media and social media. They’re happening in tandem and it's a reflection of the results.
How is the backlash over data center development affecting the work you’re now doing?
Well, I’m still early, but I think the data center question is a fascinating one. Conversations around policy and where we go from here really seem to me to be happening in the state realm. Not a lot of policy happening at the federal level. There’s New York State’s data center pause, which is leading to lawmakers trying to get more leverage.
It’s in the backdrop, where projects are being announced with massive power plants to supply new data center demand, and at the same time there’s a conversation around virtual power plants, DERs. Another phrase emerging for it is “community power.”
It’s starting to be a fascinating conversation around community benefits. There are tax benefits when a data center comes to town but when it comes to energy use, what can communities actually leverage out of this? I know former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been arguing for strong community benefit agreements, getting big tech companies to pay for solar and EVs and then using all of that to create a virtual power plant. Getting that to be flexible for data centers. That’s only one part of the pie but it’s fascinating to have this conversation about what forms of energy we need for all this demand happening.
What do you foresee about the impact of the backlash, given that land use, visuals, air, and water – its all being swept up in the same conversation?
I don’t have a crystal ball and have the same questions.
It’s all happening so quickly and it’s all playing out in so many different states. There are really important questions here and there are people smarter than I am on this, talking about how we meet this demand in the short term and long term or whether this is an opportunity for getting clean energy onto the grid. But it’s a delicate dance.
On mineral funding, Harold Hamm’s Argentina bet, and South Korea’s offshore wind
Current conditions: Heavy rainstorms are sweeping across the Great Lakes and the East Coast’s Amtrak Corridor, with the highest flood risk in North Carolina and New Jersey • Monsoonal downpours are drenching western Cameroon, with the West Region capital of Bafoussam facing more than a week of thunderstorms • A tropical storm on track to be named Moke as it strengthens will swipe Hawaii’s Big Island on Sunday afternoon as the archipelago state is still recovering from its rare encounter with Hurricane Lala last week.
The “data center brand is the anchor” dragging down Republicans fighting to keep former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown from winning back his old seat. That’s the takeaway from a National Republican Senatorial Campaign memo obtained by Axios. “Data centers are the centerpiece in the case Sherrod Brown is litigating; he has made them his de facto opponent, and no one is correcting the record,” the memo reads. Still, the strategists expressed hope: “While the perceptions of data centers are weak, the American people are with us. By overwhelming margins, the American people prefer a Republican candidate who wants to only let data centers be built in communities that approve them by a local vote of the people, and that pay for their own power, water, and other utilities versus a Democrat candidate who wants to stop data center construction altogether, which will cause America to lose the AI race to China.”
Increasingly, however, Republicans are embracing the left’s favored restrictions. Mike Rogers, the GOP nominee for Senate in Michigan, just endorsed a one-year moratorium on data centers, according to the Detroit News. In a Thursday post on X, days after President Donald Trump admonished him for the “mistake” of pausing data centers, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said his executive order restricting the facilities had halted “up to 1,800 data center projects.” Three-quarters of Americans now say they would oppose a new data center being built near where they live, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote up. That’s prompted the federal government to step in with plans to build and own the nation’s largest power station, a colossal gas-burning plant. Now Elon Musk’s AI company, SpaceXAI, is asking the largest federal utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, to provide its data centers with more electricity, according to the Daily Memphian.
Last summer, I stood on the desolate shores of the Pepto-Bismol-pink Great Salt Lake in Utah, where the startup Lilac Solutions was harvesting lithium from the water. The novel harvesting method, called direct lithium extraction, uniquely avoids the environmental scars of hard-rock mining and the heavy water usage of the lithium brine pools popular in Chile. It was, on multiple fronts, an impressive sight. The Trump administration seems to agree. On Thursday, the Department of Energy gave the company $100 million to support construction of a lithium extraction and refining facility at the very location I visited. It’s not the only awardee. The agency gave out another $100 million to the startup Jervois to open a cobalt refinery, and another $100 million still for the battery recycling Nth Cycle. Earlier stage startups Princeton NuEnergy, Arcanum Ventures, Elevated Materials, and Coreshell Technology each received $50 million for projects spanning cathode recycling, electrolyte chemicals, lithium-metal materials, and silicon-anode batteries. In total, the Energy Department gave out $500 million.
The Trump administration is set to start relaxing normal summertime gasoline requirements, clearing the way for an early shift to the sale of wintertime blends to ease the cost of fuel as the Iran War sends prices upward. Summertime blends are typically more expensive, since the refining process requires a mix that evaporates less in gas tanks during heat. Wintertime blends, by contrast, can lean more on cheap additives like butane that will not evaporate in tanks during the cold. The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it would allow for dirtier-burning wintertime fuel blends that typically don’t hit the market until mid-September. Starting on September 1, the EPA waiver will allow the sale of gasoline blended with 10% ethanol, which evaporates faster than summertime fuel, Bloomberg reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Peter Thiel isn’t the only American billionaire buying into Argentina’s attempt to spur on an oil and gas boom in its Vaca Muerta shale formation. On Thursday, oil magnate Howard Hamm told the Financial Times that his Continental Resources was buying a 50% stake in Phoenix Global Resources, whose parent company plans to quadruple oil production to 100,000 barrels per day in Vaca Muerta by 2031. Hamm said he’s built a close relationship with Argentinian President Javier Milei, an ally of Trump who is pushing for deregulation of oil and gas drilling. “He’s done the right things. He’s got the right people in the right places and is making the changes necessary day by day,” Hamm told the newspaper. “We are all very encouraged with the leadership he has shown.” Still, as I told you this week, the American oil majors’ eyes are really on Africa next.
Pacifico Energy Korea, the U.S.-based company behind the 2.1 gigawatts of wind turbines off the coast of South Korea, won approval to serve as the sole developer of the country’s biggest new offshore wind project. The company’s twin projects, the Manho Offshore Wind and Jindo Baram Offshore Wind projects, are advancing just a day after the Danish wind giant Orsted proposed a new 2-gigawatt wind farm off Taiwan’s shores, as I reported yesterday. The projects highlight the extent to which, outside the U.S. and Japan, offshore wind is still booming, “This selection is an important milestone in building a large-scale offshore wind cluster in the Jeonnam-Gwangju region,” Seung-Ho Choe, Representative Director of Pacifico Energy Korea, said in a statement to the trade publication 4C Offshore.
The dream of nuclear-propelled cargo ships is anchoring a little closer to reality. The British maritime nuclear startup Core Power just inked a deal with the Port of Corpus Christi Authority to work on a site-specific readiness study for the Texas port. It’s the second U.S. port, after California’s Port of Long Beach, to explore the concept, World Nuclear News reported.