The Oil Money Funding Trump's Legal Defense – Heatmap
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Monthly
$9.99
Auto-renews monthly
Annual
$99.00
Lock in your annual rate
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Monthly
$9.99
Auto-renews monthly
Annual
$99.00
Lock in your annual rate
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey , you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Some of the industry’s biggest boosters and beneficiaries really, really want to keep Trump out of jail.
With $6.4 million, you could pay to remove 4,923 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. You could buy 533 used Chevy Bolts — far more than enough to give one to every incoming freshman at Swarthmore College — or supply an entire county with low- and no-emissions buses.
Or, if you’re the oil and gas industry, you could donate it to the former president of the United States to help cover his mounting legal fees.
According to new analysis by the strategic communications group Climate Power, allies of Big Oil pumped more than $6.4 million into Donald Trump’s joint fundraising committee in just the first three months of 2024 — on pace to surpass the $6.9 million the industry contributed in all of 2023. “From the private equity firm execs to investors to anti-climate activists like Linda McMahon, Trump’s Small Business administrator — they all want Trump to undo our climate and clean energy progress,” Alex Witt, Climate Power’s senior advisor on oil and gas, told me. “And they want their jobs back.”
It’s no secret that the oil and gas industry has bolstered Trump’s money-strapped campaign. The recent slate of donations to a fundraising vehicle called the Trump 47 Committee, has allowed the former president to accept large checks from individuals and prioritize the allotment of those funds. In this way, the Trump 47 Committee works like a one-stop shop for well-heeled supporters like Linda McMahon, formerly Trump’s Small Business Administration head and a vocal proponent and investor in the Keystone XL pipeline and promoter of offshore drilling, and Kelcy Warren, the billionaire CEO of the pipeline operator Energy Transfer Partners. Both maxed out the committee’s $814,600 allowed contribution.
Trump 47 is technically a joint fundraising committee, a type of entity allowed by the Federal Election Commission to bundle donations going to multiple channels. This is nice for donors, who can cut a single check that then gets divided among various buckets — in this case, the Trump campaign, the Save America PAC, the RNC, and 39 different state committees, in that sequence. Critics say this form of fundraising is a way around election laws that aim to limit how much a wealthy individual can donate to a given candidate. Importantly, super PACs can’t donate to candidates or their campaigns, or coordinate things like messaging with them; the money raised by a joint fundraising committee is directed by a candidate (including into PACs), giving them fuller influence over the donations. (Joe Biden uses joint fundraising committees, too.)
The Trump 47 Committee has prioritized funneling these donations toward a PAC that covers the president’s legal fees, rather than toward the Republican National Committee, which is also struggling financially. While this strategy does not allow donors to get around the individual contribution limit of $5,000 per year to a political action committee, it does mean that after the first $6,600 of a donation made to the Trump 47 Committee (which goes toward Trump’s primary and general election accounts), the subsequent $5,000 of each donation is earmarked for the Save America PAC.
As a “leadership PAC,” Save America can’t be used on Trump’s campaign activities; instead, it is structured to cover administrative expenses. That has kept it plenty busy: The PAC has covered fees for 70 different lawyers and law firms, USA Today reports, with legal spending making up about 85% of its overall use. Between January and the end of March, Save America put a total of $8.5 million toward Trump’s legal woes, including $5.5 million in March alone. (Fossil fuel allies have also donated large amounts to MAGA Inc., a PAC that has refunded millions to Save America.)
The higher donation limits of a JFC make it more appealing for supporters who want to cut big checks, and most individuals quickly pass the $6,600 threshold. In my review of the 30 oil and gas industry executives, investors, and allies who donated to the Trump 47 Committee, according to Climate Power, I found none who donated less than $100,000.
The Trump campaign has been quick to defend itself against allegations that it is prioritizing ex-president over party by pointing out that “out of an individual donor’s maximum contribution of $824,600, less than 1% goes to Save America.”(The Trump campaign had not replied to Heatmap’s request for comment by press time.) It’s true that of the $6.4 million Big Oil allies donated to the Trump 47 Committee this year, roughly 2% has ended up in Save America’s coffers, per my own back of the envelope math.
What’s shocking isn’t how much money this amounts to in the grand scheme of the obscene amounts of capital going toward defending Trump, however. Rather, it’s that oil and gas allies — including Ray Washburn, on Sunoco’s board of directors; Peter Leidel, an oil and coal company director; and Robert Mercer, who’s funded climate misinformation — have given gobs of money to help defeat criminal charges against a former holder of, and candidate for, the presidency of the United States. For this there is no precedent. Fossil fuel interests “have made it super clear that they are willing to help pay Trump’s legal defense to help keep him out of jail,” Witt told me.
As an especially ironic footnote, Biden has in certain senses been better for the oil and gas industry than his predecessor. A more unpredictable leader, Trump was evidently a second or third choice among for many of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest donors among the crowded field of Republican candidates, both in 2016 and this time around. Oil and gas magnate Harold Hamm, for example, initially avoided committing to a Trump second term — only to come around to such an extent that he was even rumored to have helped the former president meet his recent $454 million bond.
It’s, frankly, a canny move. Plenty has already been written about Big Oil effectively buying influence over policy. Just yesterday, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has received $750,000 from the fossil fuel industry since his election in 2010, pulled the Senate’s Big Oil disinformation hearing off track by ranting about “climate change alarmism.”
It doesn’t take much creativity to imagine what Trump might do for his friends if he retakes the highest office.
“There’s absolutely no doubt that he would deliver Big Oil’s wish list wrapped up in a bow,” Witt said.
Jeva Lange
Jeva is a founding staff writer at Heatmap. Her writing has also appeared in The Week, where she formerly served as executive editor and culture critic, as well as in The New York Daily News, Vice, and Gothamist, among others. Jeva lives in New York City. Read More
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Superchargers made sense. What is Elon Musk doing?
When I finally succumbed and opened Threads, Mark Zuckerberg’s algorithm sized up my demographics and fed me two kinds of posts it thought would juice my engagement. First were the people shouting, incorrectly, that IPA is a bad style of beer and framing themselves as too hip to sip something so basic. Second: Posts from the loud, dedicated cadre of Threads users who are actively rooting against Tesla.
I understand the spite. When I bought my Model 3 five years ago, Elon Musk had begun his public heel turn. Some of the signs of what was to come were already there. However, Model 3 was the best reasonably affordable EV on the market, and the Supercharger network made it possible for us (California residents as we are) to own only an electric vehicle. You couldn’t say that for the electric Hyundai Kona.
In the time since then, Musk’s erratic or adolescent behavior has caused a rising tide of people, especially among the very online and the political left, to openly hope for and celebrate Tesla’s failures. I have not been among them. Musk’s brand was the best bet for getting Americans to quit internal combustion, a goal that’s more important to me than the man’s personal failings. Nor did I believe declarations that the company was doomed. No matter what crazy thing Elon Musk devoted his money or his attention to, it seemed like Tesla’s dominance in both the EV market and the stock market could paint over the crazy.
Now, I’m not so sure.
Last month, we covered the big problems with Tesla’s EV lineup. The only new vehicle released since 2020 was the Cybertruck, which is suffering through slow sales and a sudden unintended acceleration crisis. The sub-$30,000 model that would open up Tesla to the masses was sort of canceled, then sort of uncanceled, and now sits in limbo. Whatever that car’s fate, it’s clear that Musk is obsessed with self-driving software and his “robotaxi” at the expense of EVs actually driven by their human occupants.
But if a self-inflicted wound proves fatal, it might be the one Musk created this week by laying off essentially the entire team in charge of Tesla’s Supercharger network. That includes Rebecca Tinucci, his senior director of EV charging, who led the effort starting in 2022 to convince the other automakers to adopt Tesla’s formerly proprietary plug standard as their own.
Tinucci’s achievement was one of the company’s few undisputed success stories during the past several years of chaos. One by one, the other automakers ditched plug standards that were supported by third-party charging companies like EVgo and Electrify America to adopt the Tesla plug, which was christened the North American Charging Standard. Ford and Rivian EVs have begun this year to use a big part of Tesla’s robust Supercharger network. I cannot tell you how many excited, targeted Instagram ads I’ve gotten from Rivian celebrating the new access.
This was a huge deal for American EV adoption. Tesla’s fast-chargers are widespread, simple to use, and far more reliable than the oft-busted charging stations other EVs previously had to rely on. And it was a huge deal for Tesla, which created out of nowhere a huge new customer base ready to pay for its electricity.
And now, at what should be a moment of triumph at winning the charging wars, Musk has pivoted away. He wrote on his social network formerly named Twitter: “Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations.”
Frankly, this sounds like an attempt to hand-wave away a spectacular self-own. As The Vergereported: “Station installations were up 26% year over year, while the number of connectors was up 27%. It was a rare area of growth for the company, which has seen its sales and profits fall since last year as demand for EVs cools down.” In trying to become lean and innovative, all Musk managed to do was kneecap a part of Tesla that’s actually working.
The company has to keep making money while Musk busies himself with trying to solve AI and autonomous driving. What with its inattention to its EV lineup and shooting itself in the foot over Supercharging, suddenly the winning options are few. Tesla’s other business is in home energy, where it installs solar panels and sells its Powerwall home batteries. This is a lucrative market as energy storage becomes increasingly important to the grid and home of the future — unless Musk decides that, like selling cars, it’s too boring.
Given its huge lead in EV sales and EV charging, Tesla is forever just a few good decisions away from trending upward again. It’s just getting more difficult each day to imagine the company doing so.
On campaign finance, offshore nuclear reactors, and research satellites.
Current conditions: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a disaster declaration across 88 counties as flooding there continues • 48 people have died in China after record rainfall caused a landslide that swept away part of a highway • Louisville is forecast to see a brief dry spell during the Kentucky Derby, but rain ahead of the race could still leave the track muddy.
Individuals who’ve gotten wealthy from the oil and gas industry funneled more than $6.4 million into Donald Trump’s joint fundraising committee, the Trump 47 Committee, in the first three months of 2024, nearly equaling the $6.9 million the industry contributed during all of 2023, Heatmap’s Jeva Lange reported. Some of that money has gone toward covering the former president’s legal fees, via a political action committee that has mainly been used for legal spending and has paid 70 different lawyers and law firms. The committee has prioritized directing the funds toward the PAC ahead of the Republican National Committee (though these donations are still subject to the $5,000 annual individual contribution limit).
Fossil fuel interests “have made it super clear that they are willing to help pay Trump’s legal defense to help keep him out of jail,” Alex Witt, senior advisor on oil and gas for the strategic communications group Climate Power, told Lange.
Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry is also pouring money into other federal campaigns, Capital & Main reported. The candidate who has received the most oil and gas money so far this election cycle is August Pfluger, a Republican from Texas, who represents the 11th congressional district in the central part of the state. Pfluger is not in a tight reelection race but has been a consistent ally of the industry, including by challenging the Biden administration’s suspension of new liquefied natural gas export licenses. So far this election cycle, oil and gas interests have contributed seven times more money to Republicans and conservatives than to Democrats and liberals, campaign finance data from Open Secrets shows. The renewable energy sector has contributed nearly twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans over the same period.
Capital & Main asked the American Petroleum Institute, a major political contributor, why it favored GOP candidates. Scott Lauermann, an API spokesperson, responded: “API supports leaders from both parties who align with our policy priorities and recognize the importance of the U.S. natural gas and oil in supporting millions of American jobs, meeting demand for affordable and reliable energy, and reducing emissions through cleaner fuels.”
Pfluger in the U.S. Capitol. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The Treasury Department and the Department of Energy finalized rules that determine which EVs are eligible for the $7,500 consumer tax credit and $4,000 used vehicle tax credit on Friday. More specifically, the rules govern what percentage of battery components and critical minerals have to be sourced from the U.S. or our trade allies, how to determine whether those components were made by a “foreign entity of concern,” and how manufacturers must document their sourcing to the government. The administration made only minor adjustments to the initial guidance released last year, such as a requirement to conduct more detailed critical mineral supply chain tracing beginning in 2027.
This is important news for automakers, who will have a more complete picture moving forward of the investments they’ll need to make in new supply chains and domestic manufacturing to ensure their vehicles qualify. For consumers, though, it won’t change much. The administration isn’t anticipating any immediate changes in the number of eligible vehicles, and buyers will still be able to claim the tax credit as a rebate off the listing price at the dealership, a program that started at the beginning of this year.
China is taking steps toward putting floating nuclear reactors in the South China Sea, the Washington Postreported. Chinese state media has said that the reactors would power military facilities there, according to U.S. officials, and though the reactors are likely still several years away from being built, the plan is ringing alarm bells. “Our concern is that the closer they get to deploying floating nuclear power plants, the faster they’ll use them for purposes contrary to the national security of the United States and broader security in the region,” an unnamed senior State Department official told the Post.
Many countries are working on floating reactor designs, but most such projects are still in development. International standards have not been established for the reactors’ construction or safe operation.
The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday approved oil giant Exxon Mobil’s acquisition of Permian Basin extraction company Pioneer Natural Resources — but only if the latter company’s founder and CEO, Scott Sheffield, refrained from taking a seat on the board. In doing so, the FTC accused Sheffield of colluding with OPEC, the organization that sets output levels for many of the world’s biggest oil producers. The goal of his cooperation, the agency said, was to “reduce output of oil and gas, which would result in Americans paying higher prices at the pump, to inflate profits for his company.” Pioneer issued a statement saying it was surprised by the FTC’s claim and disagreed with its contention, but that it would not take any steps to prevent the merger from closing.
The first of two NASA satellites that will study the relationship between Earth’s poles and climate change could launch as soon as May 22, according to Space.com. Each roughly the size of a shoebox and equipped with a temperature sensor, the satellites that make up the PREFIRE mission — that’s Polar Radiant Energy in the Far-InfraRed Experiment — will measure the amount of thermal energy that escapes via the poles.
Spoiler: None of them feels great.
“Delete, delete, delete,” Elon Musk reportedly told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, describing his approach to management. “Delete any part or process you can. You may have to add them back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn't delete enough.”
Musk has taken his own advice: He is slicing to the bone. Earlier this week, he dismissed the head of Tesla’s Supercharger network, Rebecca Tinucci, as well as her more than 500-person team. As of today, Tesla has only a barebones crew, at best, tasked with maintaining and expanding its high-speed car charging network. It has already pulled out of a planned expansion in New York City.
Musk also laid off what remained of the company’s policy and new vehicle teams. These severe cuts follow layoffs announced in March, when Musk dismissed about 10% of Tesla’s employees. According to Electrek, the two events may be related: Musk asked Tinucci to make deeper cuts in her team in April, she pushed back, and he fired her to set an example. The company has cut more than 14,000 employees worldwide since the beginning of the year.
The news is — and there is no way of sugarcoating this — either sort of stupid, bad, or very bad for the electric vehicle transition. Here are three ways of looking at it:
Over the past year, every other major automaker in the United States has switched to Tesla’s charging plug, the North American Charging Standard, or NACS. They have struck deals that will let them use much of Tesla’s existing Supercharger network; Ford is in the process of mailing its drivers a free NACs adapter plug. These agreements were meant to give consumers more certainty about the EV transition: No matter what car they bought, they would be able to use most of Tesla’s superior charging network.
Now, that certainty is gone. Which chargers will work in the future? How much more will the Tesla network expand? And what will happen to those deals with automakers now that the Supercharger team is gone? The employees laid off this week included those who worked closely with other companies.
At least publicly, Ford is keeping its cool. “Our plans for our customers do not change,” Marty Günsberg, communications director for Ford’s electric vehicle division, told Heatmap. And yet contractors and others with business in front of Tesla's charging team were left completely in the dark Tuesday, their emails bouncing back from addresses that no longer existed, according to E&E News. No other equivalent charging network exists in the U.S., meaning there's no other easy place for them to go.
Musk, for his part, has intimated that the company will begin to look into wireless charging. Although wireless charging may make slightly more sense for self-driving cars — the car could drive itself into a given spot, etvoilà! — it is a puzzling decision from a man who has said the only real constraints are those imposed by the laws of physics. More than half of current and prospective EV owners say that they worry about charger availability and convenience, yet wireless charging is slower and less efficient than wired charging, meaning it will require more charging spots and each vehicle will have to stay there longer.
So again we must ask, why? The answer may lie in the animal spirits of the market — and Elon’s dependence on the market for his personal wealth. Tesla’s stock has more or less held steady since the cuts. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote, Musk has spun the layoffs as part of a corporate turn away from selling electric vehicles, chargers, and home batteries and toward achieving artificial intelligence and autonomous driving.
That is partly because Musk must keep justifying — or, if we really want to be blunt, propping up — Tesla’s astronomical share price, which itself is premised on the idea that Tesla is a technology company, not a car company. In order to do that, he must continually steer his sometimes-profitable company toward the buzziest, most hyped-up phenomenon in the economy. Never mind his actually existing EV charger business; that can’t justify the fantasy of the share price. He needs to find something new.
One of the more useful ways of understanding Elon Musk is that he seeks to create and control private infrastructure. SpaceX creates privatized access to rocket launches. Starlink allows for privatized access to the global, satellite-provided internet. The Hyperloop — to the degree that it existed at all — sought to create a privatized and individualized form of mass transit. (Musk, fittingly, hates public transit.) Even Musk’s purchase of Twitter, now rechristened X, reflected a desire to enclose the public sphere.
And for the past year, you could understand Tesla in the same light. Sure, Tesla was an electric vehicle company. But it was rapidly becoming an infrastructure company. Through its deals with other automakers, it was cementing itself as the premier provider of electric vehicle charging in the United States. It was also the part of the company that elicited the least suspicion from Tesla’s many critics. Drivers might not always be able to rely on a third-party charger, but a Tesla Supercharger? It worked.
It hasn’t always been this way. For years, the Supercharger network seemed like Tesla’s key competitive advantage, its Warren Buffett-style moat. If you wanted access to America’s most famous and reliable fast-charging network, you had to buy a Tesla. But starting with Ford a year ago, Musk struck deals with other automakers allowing their cars to use some of its charger network. At the same time, Tesla also bowed to federal pressure and standardized its NACS charger with SAE International. That helped it win more than $17 million in grants from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to build even more chargers.
Why pull back now? None of the options is very encouraging. The most hopeful answer is Tesla-specific: Maybe demand for the automaker’s vehicles is sinking so quickly that Musk is, in essence, reaching for things he can throw overboard. Tesla has historically relied on Chinese consumers to buoy its sales, but it has hemorrhaged market share in China as the country’s home-grown automakers have come out with newer and often superior EVs. But things there took a turn for the better earlier this week as Musk won approval (albeit conditional) to use Tesla’s so-called Full Self-Driving software on Chinese roads. And even if a sales slump were the explanation, why also ditch the team working on new vehicles at Tesla?
The other possibilities are bleaker. BloombergNEF has ballparked that Tesla’s charging business could generate $740 million in annual profits by 2030. But that relies on Musk’s estimate that the Supercharging business has a 10% margin. If that margin has since shrunk — or if its chargers just aren’t getting used as much as Tesla once anticipated — then further investment right now might not make sense.
That’s a problem, though, as most prospective buyers say that there need to be even more public chargers before they would consider buying an EV. If the economics don’t justify a further investment in chargers, however, even with all that apparently pent up demand, then the country is in a pickle. In that case, Musk’s decision looks self-defeating, a panicky and downturn-averse reaction that will ultimately undercut the market for Tesla’s cars.
About the only bright spot here is that Musk has surrendered hundreds of the most talented charging employees to the market. Tesla excelled at using a mix of policy and engineering prowess to integrate their chargers into local utilities’ systems and rate structures; other automakers can now snap up the people with those skills.