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’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
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
Energy

The EPA’s Backdoor Move to Hobble the Carbon Capture Industry

Why killing a government climate database could essentially gut a tax credit

Lee Zeldin.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s bid to end an Environmental Protection Agency program may essentially block any company — even an oil firm — from accessing federal subsidies for capturing carbon or producing hydrogen fuel.

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that it would stop collecting and publishing greenhouse gas emissions data from thousands of refineries, power plants, and factories across the country.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Adaptation

The ‘Buffer’ That Can Protect a Town from Wildfires

Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.

Homes as a wildfire buffer.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.

More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

How the Tax Bill Is Empowering Anti-Renewables Activists

A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.

Massachusetts and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, Getty Images

A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow