Old-School Politics Might Just Save the IRA

They may only control the House of Representatives for now, but Republicans in Washington are already arguing amongst themselves about what they’ll do if they take control of both congressional chambers and the White House in November’s elections. And one of the most intense debates concerns the Inflation Reduction Act, one of Joe Biden’s signature legislative accomplishments and the most important climate bill ever passed in the U.S. Should they repeal it? Repeal it, then drown it, then set it on fire? That’s what some would prefer to do. But the reality may be more delicate than that.

Earlier this month, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson gave a speech to a conservative group in which he vowed to “cut the wasteful Green New Deal spending in the Democrats’ so-called Inflation Reduction Act” if Republicans take control (for the uninitiated, “wasteful Green New Deal spending” essentially means “whatever environmental spending you don’t like”). But he also said in an interview that “You’ve got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer” when going after the IRA, “because there’s a few provisions in there that have helped overall.”

To many Republicans, that was nothing less than blasphemy. “A sledgehammer to the so-called Inflation Reduction Act is what is needed,” said Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas. “Something tells me that’s going to be an issue of contention next year between some of my colleagues and their districts where they might have interests who love the largesse of Washington, D.C.,” said Representative Byron Donalds of Florida. “Repeal the IRA now. Completely,” said Representative Bob Good of Virginia. All are members of the far-right Freedom Caucus. Representatives of conservative advocacy groups have also condemned the idea of not repealing the IRA in full.

And yet, Johnson’s remarks also came after 18 Republicans in his caucus whose districts have benefited from the IRA sent him a letter warning against repealing the law. “We hear from industry and our constituents who fear the energy tax regime will once again be turned on its head due to Republican repeal efforts,” they wrote. “Prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing.”

What we have here is a conflict between interests and ideology. The hard-right conservatives will say that the law violates almost everything they believe in since it addresses climate change (which they prefer not to do) with a big, expensive, government-driven effort (which they hate). But for many Republicans, the IRA is bringing jobs and economic development to their districts. And when ideology and interests collide, interests usually prevail.

Appropriators have long understood that a key way to protect your funding is to widen the number of people and places that benefit from it. The Pentagon has always been adept at distributing subcontracts for big weapons systems across as many congressional districts as possible; if 100 different members of Congress have constituents making widgets that go in a bomber, they’ll make sure its funding won’t get cut in the next budget.

That idea was built into the design of the IRA, along with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, the other Biden-era laws that contained serious climate spending. Some of the benefits are available to any American (like subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles), but others are more geographically targeted. As it turns out, those benefits have flowed disproportionately to Republican-run states and conservative areas. Which means that there are a lot of Republicans in Congress who might not be on board with repealing the IRA, even if they voted against it in the first place — which all of them did.

As you may recall, the IRA got zero Republican votes in both the Senate and House when it passed in August 2022. In the two years since, some of those same Republicans who voted no have taken credit when IRA funds came to their states and districts, to both annoyance and mockery from their Democratic counterparts.

Hypocritical or not, the economic logic can be hard to deny. According to an analysis by Bloomberg News, $206 billion in clean technology manufacturing investments have been announced under President Biden, most of which involve EVs and batteries. Of that total, $42 billion will be spent in districts represented by Democrats, while $161 billion, nearly four times as much, will go to Republican districts. Overall, that spending can be found in 185 congressional districts. Other estimates put the amount of investment even higher.

Many of the politicians representing these districts are conservative Republicans who haven’t abandoned their ideology — at least not rhetorically. Some of them may be outright climate deniers, who will be happy to rail against wasteful government spending and the Green New Deal if you ask them to. But if it comes to a vote that would cut off subsidies to a factory that’s employing thousands of their constituents, they’re almost certainly going to say no.

And if you’re an advocate of climate action, that’s fine. They can bloviate all they want. That’s why the IRA was designed the way it was: to make progress on climate, and ensure that that law was durable. White House economist Heather Boushey recently said that one of the administration’s climate goals is to “create more path dependency,” so climate progress will be harder to undo. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t vulnerable provisions of the law, but they’re likely to be the ones that don’t have advocates on both sides of the aisle; a manufacturing tax credit may be safer than the one on purchases of heat pumps.

We’ve come to expect that the passage of a major law doesn’t end the fight over it; Republicans tried for years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and some are still talking about doing so 14 years after it passed. But they never succeeded because it would have hurt too many people. That history might repeat itself.