Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

The Great Clamming-Up

No one wants to talk about Trump — at least not to a reporter.

•
Walking away from a megaphone.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

These are strange times to be a reporter. The vice president has openly mocked journalists concerned about apparently arbitrary limits to their reporting abilities. Referring to the Gulf of Mexico as such can get you barred from the White House. Say the wrong thing on air and one of the most powerful people in the country might demand you face “a long prison sentence.”

The Trump administration’s flagrant disregard for the law and its mass firings of career civil servants have created an atmosphere of chaos and confusion — one that reaches far beyond Washington. In recent weeks, longtime reliable sources have ghosted Heatmap reporters. Household-name brands and organizations, sought for comment on the administration’s new policies, have avoided responding to queries or apologized for “not being able to contribute at the moment.” Questions sent to government email addresses have begun to return to sender. The pattern of hesitance cuts across sectors: advocacy groups, academics, nonprofits, and commercial enterprises have all declined to comment.

In my own experiences as a reporter, I’ve never found it this difficult to get people to speak with me. To be fair, not everyone has clammed up: Last week, I had an excellent conversation with Corley Kenna and Matt Dwyer, Patagonia’s chief impact officer and vice president of product footprint, respectively, in which we candidly discussed how much Biden-era policies informed their ambitious corporate sustainability goals (almost not at all, they said), as well as some of the backtracking on green initiatives by banks and other major corporations since Trump has taken office.

But tight lips nevertheless abound, and for a number of reasons. Some sources have said they’re unable to offer additional information or clarity on a situation; even experts often can’t hazard a guess as to what will happen next. For example, my colleague Jael Holzman has reported on the “confusing state of affairs” for the renewables industry, with the Army Corps of Engineers sending contradictory messages. The entire federal environmental review process is currently a giant question mark as well — never mind the overarching uncertainty of whether Trump is allowed to be doing any of this in the first place.

But I suspect there’s a more significant reason sources have clammed up: fear. Some might be worried about what will happen if they stick their necks out and are playing a sort of wait-and-see game with everyone else; others, justifiably, might be scared of more direct forms of retribution. Some organizations have policies against their employees speaking on Trump-related developments, or are otherwise preparing or engaged in lawsuits that prevent them from talking to the press more candidly. Even offers to go off the record or publish comments anonymously have been turned down. The hesitation is understandable: Musk and Trump have said they’re eager to snuff out “leakers.”

This makes it challenging to report stories, of course. But it’s also, more existentially, a crisis of democracy. “Although the press is not always the first institution to be attacked when a country’s leadership takes an antidemocratic turn, repression of free media is a strong indication that other political rights and civil liberties are in danger,” Freedom House, a global watchdog, writes. An independent and free press serves to hold power accountable, and it relies on the stories and voices of the people in order to do that well.

The more difficult it becomes to find people willing — or able — to speak freely about what they’re seeing and experiencing, the ever more vital it becomes to report just that.

And, well, if you do have something you want to get off your chest? You know where to find us.

Green
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

Why the Wilderness Society Backs a Data Center Moratorium

Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.

The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Data Center Outrage Catches Up to Renewables Outrage in Michigan

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).

  • This week brought the first and likely only debate between Rep. Tom Barrett and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who are locked in a tight contest over the Michigan 7th congressional district. As I’ve written, their race is a must-watch not only for control of the U.S. House but also the political fortunes of the data center sector.
  • The debate contained a remarkable exchange: Moderators played taped remarks from Paula Caltrider, identified as “a local resident” in the city of Mason to ask the candidates a question about data centers. Instead, she offered a comment. “You know, you can’t be a part of this no data center movement without renouncing the large solar farms and dangerous battery storage facilities that power these data centers.” (Quick TL;DR on Caltrider: She’s been quoted in national media coverage of the data center backlash and last year won a legal settlement after allegedly being fired for refusing a vaccine mandate.)
  • Barrett then ran with Caltrider’s baton. “I appreciate Paula linking these together, the stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing that took away control from communities” – a reference to the state’s primacy law that other Michigan Republican candidates have opposed.
  • Lawrence, whose support for a federal data center moratorium made him a national political test case, did not take the bait, nor did he criticize renewable energy. Instead, this part of the debate became a tit-for-tat about whether the sitting congressman once backed tax breaks for data centers. “He stuck his finger up into the wind, saw which way it was blowing, did a complete 180 on this issue,” Lawrence said. Then Barrett and Lawrence got into a confusing back-and-forth about whether the Inflation Reduction Act was a giveaway to data centers.
  • To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the Data Center Trojan Horse has reared its ugly head on any kind of prominent debate stage, but it won’t be the last. For example: The Wisconsin gubernatorial debate is Oct. 21, and we’ve warned you about that one.

2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Data Center Backlash Is Coming for Permitting Reform

The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.

The Capitol and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.

This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow