The short version
- Firms representing fossil fuel interests are simultaneously contracted by over three hundred local governments to lobby for climate disaster recovery funds.
- Researchers identified significant conflicts of interest, noting that some municipalities hired lobbyists who actively opposed state-level legislation designed to hold polluters financially accountable.
- While public testimony often supported climate superfund bills, registered lobbyists frequently outnumbered supporters in legislative hearings, raising concerns about the influence of industry money.
A new examination of federal lobbying records for the first quarter of 2026 has uncovered a widespread conflict of interest within the American political landscape. Congressional firms that advocate on behalf of major fossil fuel producers are simultaneously being paid by more than three hundred local governments to secure funding for climate-related damages. This dual representation suggests that many municipalities may be inadvertently hiring advocates who work against their own interests in broader legislative battles concerning environmental accountability and mitigation financing.
The research, conducted by the organizations F Minus and Make Polluters Pay, analyzed disclosure data to map these overlapping client lists. Beyond the three hundred entities seeking climate relief, an additional five hundred sixty-eight local governments employed these same lobbying firms for non-climate issues during the same period. Some of these secondary matters touched on climate-adjacent sectors such as healthcare and home insurance, further entangling local budgets with industry interests. The findings indicate that dozens of lobbying firms are actively working on both sides of the climate action debate.
James Browning, founder of F Minus, suggests that many local officials are unaware of these conflicts. He argues that cities hiring these firms for disaster relief and wildlife conservation likely do not realize their advocates also represent entities like ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. According to Browning, these fossil fuel clients are often accused of pushing policies that deepen dependence on carbon-intensive energy sources. Local governments may be locked into long-standing relationships with large lobbying firms without understanding that those same firms are obstructing climate efforts elsewhere.
The law firm Greenberg Traurig serves as a prominent example of this dynamic. The firm has lobbied for three major fossil fuel entities, including ConocoPhillips and the Western States Petroleum Association, which have opposed state legislation aimed at holding companies accountable for historic emissions. These laws typically propose creating climate superfunds to support mitigation costs. Despite this opposition, Miami-Dade County hired Greenberg Traurig to lobby for shoreline protection and Everglades restoration. Browning described this arrangement as a glaring conflict of interest.
Similar conflicts appear in New York, where Westchester County and the city of Rochester also engaged Greenberg Traurig. These localities could potentially lose access to mitigation funds if the firm’s fossil fuel clients succeed in invalidating New York’s climate superfund legislation. Browning characterized the firm’s approach as representing a cynical extreme, noting that their operations work against opponents of superfund bills while serving as major funders of climate denialism. Officials from Miami-Dade, Westchester, and Rochester did not respond to requests for comment regarding these competing interests.
Greenberg Traurig also declined to comment on the conflict. However, in a 2024 interview, executive chairman Richard Rosenbaum stated that the firm has expanded its capabilities to advise clients building a more sustainable world. This claim stands in contrast to the findings of the lobbying analysis, which highlights the firm’s active role in opposing accountability measures for fossil fuel producers. The disconnect between public statements on sustainability and actual lobbying activities remains a point of contention for researchers.
The broader legislative landscape shows similar tensions. New York and Vermont passed climate superfund laws in 2024, while thirteen other states considered such legislation this year. Cassidy DiPaola of Make Polluters Pay noted that organizers often had encouraging discussions with lawmakers before those same officials voted against the bills. In New Jersey, for instance, over a hundred business groups opposed the legislation despite widespread public support and favorable testimony. DiPaola observed a sudden influx of industry lobbyists at the state capitol, which she attributed to fossil fuel dollars influencing political outcomes.
A separate report from Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab supports these observations. The study found that while the majority of people and groups testifying on superfund bills favored them, registered lobbyists often opposed them in greater numbers. In every state legislature where such bills were introduced, fossil fuel companies took a stance against them. Timmons Roberts, who heads the lab, noted that while public testimony can be analyzed, it is difficult to measure the influence of lobbyists in closed-door meetings. He emphasized that powerful interests often operate quietly behind the scenes.
These findings raise significant questions about the integrity of local government advocacy and the effectiveness of climate legislation. As more states consider superfund bills, the presence of conflicted lobbyists may complicate efforts to secure funding for communities affected by climate change. The reliance on large lobbying firms that represent opposing interests could undermine public trust in the legislative process. Until transparency improves, municipalities may continue to navigate a complex web of competing financial and political pressures.
The situation underscores the challenges facing local governments as they seek resources to address climate impacts. With limited budgets and urgent needs, cities often turn to established lobbying firms for assistance. However, the dual representation revealed in these disclosures suggests that some of these partnerships may be counterproductive. As lawmakers debate new environmental regulations, the role of industry-funded lobbyists will likely remain a central issue in determining the success of climate mitigation efforts.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗US fossil fuel lobbyists also represent hundreds of cities fighting for climate damages
