“… Instead of reporting on this, [Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow] present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also … [let] statements like ‘hoax’ or ‘green new scam’ go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue.” – Chris Wilke, Center for Environmental Law & Policy
“Great reporting by Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow [“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times (February 9, 2026)] on the long campaign by four hardcore climate deniers to take down the Endangerment Finding,” wrote Jeff Goodell on social media. The leading author of climate alarmist books and articles continued:
Forget the idea of energy policy based on abundance. This is energy policy based on scorched Earth. And a blatant giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, who will profit while the world burns.
Not so fast! Chris Wilke, executive director at the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, commented:
It’s good, but not great, reporting in my opinion. I respect the research and ability to name names, motivations and history of how we got here. This is very important in that respect. But it fails to discuss the consequences of the deregulatory actions, completely missing the clear trajectory of harm that will intensify as a result of this massive deregulation, as well as the global implications and economic risks.
It also misses the moral bankruptcy, fragility and vulnerability of their arguments. They may still lose this fight in court, especially in light of the finding last month that the Climate Impacts Group was illegally formed from biased people operating on a secret agenda.
Wilke continued:
Instead of reporting on this, the authors present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also fail to interview or even get statements from opponents, letting statements like “hoax” or “green new scam” go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue. They can do better.
Jeff Goodell responded:
This is deadline journalism, Chris. Of course lots more to say, more perspective and context to add, but this is far and away the best reporting I’ve seen today on this breaking news.
Chris Wilke tried, tried to tone it down a bit:
Thanks. I’m glad I saw it, and I’m glad you shared it. I’m also grateful for your writings.
This article however is another glaring example of how the Overton window has shifted as a result of extreme policies. Having climate deniers write a scientific report on climate change, and then to see the administration basing a far-reaching policy decision on climate just one week after that? Shameful, and transparently biased. That is the real story here: the why, not just the who, the what and the how, though that is all good to know.
A follow up article is indeed warranted to respond to the glaring omissions in this case. If that’s in the works I’d happily postpone or withdraw my criticism. 😎
A Balint Katona joined in, adding a bit of weirdness.
Fair conclusion. I would add, that this should not come as a surprise. All the mass media platform are geared towards news that sell, sensations and creating tension. It is bs, nyt is shite. Instead of sharing relevant information that people can use to make life-affirming decisions, you are left with unnecessary stress.
And Lisa Friedman herself commented!
Thank you Jeff! And I agree with you too, Chris. It’s hard to do everything in one story. We have written at length about the consequences of this and other climate deregulations and will continue to do so. But this piece was an attempt to pull back the curtain and show the players who kept this issue alive even when a lot of corporate actors decided the endangerment finding was no longer worth fighting.
In any case, Ty for reading!!
Credit Trump with a sea change in the whole climate/energy issue. The Progressive Left is playing defense. And nerves are fraying in the face of pragmatism and the mere appearance of two-sided reporting given the changed political mainstream.