Republicans Want to Shield Big Oil from Climate Accountability. Here’s What Dems are Saying in Response
Democrats in Congress are starting to speak out in opposition to a new bill that would grant sweeping legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) speaks during an Earth Day press conference on Capitol Hill calling for passage of a windfall profits tax on Big Oil. Credit: Screen shot from recording of the event on April 22, 2026.
Last month, Republicans in Congress unveiled a legislative proposal that would shut down efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in fueling the accelerating climate crisis. The bill’s champions described it as a move to “defend American energy” and protect U.S. energy and national security. But critics say that it would shut the courthouse doors on Americans and communities harmed by climate pollution and would effectively place Big Oil above the law.
Introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the “Stop Climate Shakedowns Act” would, if enacted, grant sweeping legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry, which is facing dozens of climate-related lawsuits and the prospect of billions of dollars in liabilities. The bill would make that liability risk go away, full stop. It would block any new climate lawsuits from being filed in federal and state courts and require that all pending suits against the oil industry be immediately dismissed. Climate superfund laws like the ones enacted in Vermont and New York, and all other versions of polluter pays legislation, would be prohibited. And the bill establishes, under a federal preemption clause, that regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is “governed exclusively by federal law,” potentially threatening most if not all state climate laws and related actions.
In short, it would shield Big Oil from accountability for the widespread death and destruction its products and conduct unleash – much like how the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded gun manufacturers from civil liability (though that law did include some exceptions; the fossil fuel immunity proposal has no exceptions).
Last year a group of Republican state attorneys general wrote to then-U.S. AG Pam Bondi explicitly encouraging her to recommend liability shield legislation that could “stop activist-funded climate lawsuits,” similar to the 2005 PLCAA. Earlier this year during a House Judiciary Oversight hearing, Hageman revealed that she was working on crafting such legislation, which the American Petroleum Institute had spent months lobbying for.
It is unclear whether this bill will get any traction. It has been referred to the Judiciary committees in both the House and Senate and has so far not seen further movement. Climate advocates who are closely monitoring it say that it will not be able to garner 60 votes in the Senate, so it would have to be sneaked into a reconciliation package or some other must-pass bill to have any chance of passage.
I reported on the bill in a story that ran this week in Sierra. The story was among the first news articles to report on-the-record statements from Democrats in Congress responding directly to the Republicans’ immunity proposal for Big Oil. Some of the statements in that article were condensed. But I wanted to provide the statements in full here, so there can be a more complete record of what Democrats are saying about this extreme bill (as climate journalist Emily Atkin accurately described it) to shield polluters from climate accountability. Additionally, I am including a few statements that were either reported by other news outlets or that were posted publicly on social media.
Responses from Democratic Senators
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island is one of the leading voices in the Senate advocating for climate action and calling out fossil fuel industry corruption. Here is what he said about the immunity proposal:
“In the United States alone, the fossil fuel industry enjoys a $700-plus billion dollar per year pollute-for-free subsidy, the biggest in world history. Any idea that government is unfair to fossil fuel is ridiculous. Now they want not just to pollute for free but to operate outside the civil law, free of consequences. Everyone should be disgusted. It is a grotesque signal of the extent to which fossil fuel dark money influence controls Republican sock puppets.”
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts is another stalwart climate champion. His response:
“Big Oil has long known of the danger it poses to our democracy and to our climate, and we need to protect our ability to hold these companies accountable. We shouldn’t be shielding Big Oil—we should be shielding communities from climate harm.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut had this to say:
“Big Oil should have to face the music for knowingly deceiving consumers about the impact of fossil fuels on our communities and environment. These companies are just taking a page out of Big Tobacco’s playbook—attempting to skirt regulation and stop us from bringing enforcement actions against their specific industry. We do not need, nor should we ever have, any immunity for fossil fuel companies from litigation that seeks to hold them accountable.”
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who has sponsored a federal polluter pays climate superfund bill, said:
“While we’ve put forward proposals – like my Polluters Pay bill – to hold Big Oil accountable and make them pay for the harm their actions have caused to communities across the country, Republicans are hell-bent on doing the opposite. Republicans want to give Big Oil a license to pollute with impunity and leave it to taxpayers to pay the costs. This is exactly the kind of special interest grift that the American people are sick of. We should be requiring Big Oil to pay up – not shielding them from ever facing their day in court or being held responsible.”
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) speaks during a press conference announcing his Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act. Credit: Screen shot from event recording in September 2024.
New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have vowed to block the legislation, according to Newsday.
“This bill would slam the door on holding fossil fuel polluters accountable and shift the burden onto New Yorkers. Polluters should pay for the climate damage they caused, not taxpayers,” Schumer told Newsday in a statement.
Responses from Democrats in the House
The couple of House Democrats I reached out to or have seen public statements from are all part of the House’s Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition. Former Congressman and Washington governor Jay Inslee, one of the co-founders of this coalition, has also been an outspoken opponent of attempts to shield Big Oil from climate accountability. In late March he briefed some members of Congress about the oil industry’s push to secure a liability shield. “I am playing the role of Paul Revere here. The British aren’t coming but the oil and gas industry is,” Inslee told members of the coalition.
Rep. Paul Tonko (NY-20), co-chair of the House SEEC, said this about the “Stop Climate Shakedowns” bill:
“Once again, Republicans are prioritizing polluters over our planet and the wellbeing of the American people. Shielding Big Oil from facing accountability for the damage they have caused is a slap in the face to the very concept of justice and to the countless who have been harmed by the fossil fuel industry. I’ll fight against this cruel bill that gives polluters a free pass. Any member of Congress who cares about accountability, our environment, and public health must do the same.”
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), a vice-chair of the coalition, said this:
“It is abundantly clear that the priority of Republican lawmakers is to protect corporate polluters at the expense of people who pay higher bills, breathe dirtier air, and confront more climate-induced extreme weather events. Carbon emissions are contributing to disease and damaging the environment. Granting immunity to oil and gas companies is immoral and would further harm people across the country who are already burdened by surging electricity bills, higher property insurance, and unaffordable health care costs. The companies and individuals who created this crisis must be held accountable, and that means giving injured parties their day in court. I will do everything I can to block this legislation and any other attempt to create a liability shield for polluters.”
And Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49), also a vice-chair of the SEEC, had this to say:
“The Stop Climate Shakedowns Act is a bailout for an entire industry that spent decades lying to the American public about the damage its products were causing. They funded the science to understand that damage, they saw the projections, they spent millions burying it, and now they want Congress to guarantee they never pay a dime for the consequences. Fossil fuel companies are begging for a liability shield because they know they are guilty of breaking the law. I am firmly opposed to this bill, and I will fight to ensure that the communities bearing the costs of climate change retain every legal tool available to hold oil and gas corporations accountable.” (Levin also posted a video clip where he made some of these same remarks).
Rep. Dan Goldberg (NY-10) also posted a short video clip where he called out the Republicans’ fossil fuel immunity proposal:
“Right now, 22 state attorneys general from around the country are suing New York to overturn this [climate superfund] legislation. And worse yet, Republicans in Congress are trying to pass a law that would preempt it, yet again trying to come to the defense of Big Oil…We must stand up for the New York law that makes polluters pay for their pollution, not New York taxpayers.”
In March I reported for Inside Climate News on the brewing effort, at federal and state levels, to immunize polluters from climate liability. A federal liability shield bill had not yet been introduced, but a spokesperson for Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-08) and House Judiciary Democrats said that they would oppose any immunity efforts:
“Fossil fuel companies are apparently continuing to lobby for legislation that would absolve them of any accountability for their role in endangering people’s health and safety. We rejected these efforts in 2020 and will continue to defeat them if they are proposed in the future.”