The phrase that encapsulated the Trump administration’s stance on climate change originated in Durham, New Hampshire, on December 16, 2023.
Surrounded by supporters in flannel gear holding “Live free or die” banners, then-candidate Trump greeted the audience with a Merry Christmas before diving into what he perceived were the critical failings of the current government. He targeted President Biden, referring to him as “crooked Joe,” and critiqued the state of the economy, dubbing it “Bidenomics.” Approximately 10 minutes into his speech, he turned his attention to Biden’s climate initiatives, declaring them as “wasting trillions on Green New Deal nonsense.”
However, Trump seemed to realize that merely using the term “Green New Deal” allowed his opponents to strengthen their advocacy for climate action. Thus, he began improvising in front of the audience, brainstorming ways to counter it.
“They don’t have a clue, but you’re going to be left penniless funding his massive government Green New Deal, which is just a socialist scam. And you know what? You have to be careful. It’s going to land us all in major trouble,” he stated. “The Green New Deal doesn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, from now on— the Green New Scam.”
The crowd erupted in approval, waving their signs energetically. “I really like that phrase, and it just came to me,” Trump said. “From this day forth, it shall be known as the Green New Scam.”
There’s been considerable focus on Trump’s elimination of climate change terminology, and rightfully so: Government personnel are now cautious about language they previously used with ease. Terms like “clean energy,” “climate science,” and “pollution” have been listed among the so-called “woke” words that federal agencies discourage their employees from using. Recently, a memo from the Department of Energy recommended staff to omit or alter fundamental terms like “climate change,” “emissions,” and “green.” Beyond merely erasing these terms, the administration is also infusing new language aimed at undermining the credibility of climate science and policies.
Since Trump initiated his second term, the phrase “Green New Scam”—always in uppercase—has emerged in White House fact sheets and press reports, reverberating through federal agencies and among Republicans in Congress.
“He exhibits a remarkable ability to formulate catchy phrases and propagates them through repetition,” noted Renee Hobbs, a communications expert at the University of Rhode Island and author of a book about contemporary propaganda. “That is a classic propaganda tactic – you reinforce preferred phrases while downplaying or ignoring concepts that contradict your agenda.”
This represents a larger initiative to erase scientific knowledge regarding climate change. Recently, the administration has eliminated complete sections on climate change and adaptation strategies, according to Gretchen Gehrke, who oversees federal websites via the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. The 400 specialists preparing the next official climate assessment report were discharged, and all previous reports have been removed as well. The administration is also urging closure of longstanding monitoring initiatives for carbon dioxide levels, while the Environmental Protection Agency has stopped collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions from polluters.
This can be seen as a tripartite strategy: First, eliminate climate change-related language; next, dismantle the scientific basis underpinning it; and finally, replace the void with messaging that aligns with Trump’s political objectives—such as the “Green New Scam.”
“We’ve always recognized that language influences perception, and it can fabricate false realities,” Hobbs explained. “This is precisely what Trump is achieving with his rhetoric regarding climate change.”
In Trump’s expanding repertoire of anti-climate slogans, “Green New Scam” stands as a prominent tool. The Green New Deal is a prime target for Trump since it represents a broad spectrum of progressive policies, observed Josh Freed, senior VP for climate and energy at the think tank Third Way. “That was the concept that Trump zeroed in on, flipping the narrative to highlight it as a weakness that he believed the public would view as extreme,” he stated.
Trump has also introduced this rhetoric to international audiences. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly last month, he spent a significant part denouncing climate policies, criticizing renewable energy and global climate initiatives. “If you don’t abandon this green scam, your nation will face failure,” he warned world leaders.
In the same speech, he termed climate change “the greatest con job ever unleashed on the globe” and asserted that “the carbon footprint is a fabrication created by individuals with malicious intents.”
Utilizing conspiracy theories is a prevalent tactic in propaganda, as highlighted by Hobbs. “Conspiracy theories are tantalizing because they introduce a nefarious agent secretly aiming to harm individuals, naturally attracting human attention,” she commented. Research shows that misinformation about climate change is more compelling than empirical scientific data.
Nonetheless, Trump faces an uphill struggle in his attempt to label climate change as a myth. Approximately 70 percent of Americans recognize that global warming is a reality. Concurrently, recent polling indicated that a majority of Americans distrust Republicans concerning environmental matters, with only 23 percent endorsing the party’s approach to environmental challenges.
Nevertheless, if a phrase is repeated sufficiently, it can begin to reshape perception, even if it lacks accuracy. Trump grasped this principle instinctively, which fuels his linguistic strategies. “I have a standing directive in the White House—never say ‘coal,’ instead say ‘clean, beautiful coal,’” Trump remarked during his U.N. address. “Sounds much better, doesn’t it?”
Although coal may be deemed dirty by nearly every standard used to classify cleanliness, the phrase “clean coal” could still alter public perceptions of the fuel. “If you can regulate terminology, you’re dictating thought,” stated Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communication professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in campaign discourse. Once we adopt a new lexicon, those terms begin to influence our thinking, often subconsciously. People absorb the underlying assumptions without realizing it.
Jamieson contends that this forms part of a larger strategy to favor fossil fuels over renewable energy sources like solar and wind. The Trump administration has scrapped billions in clean energy funding while simultaneously expediting permits for new pipelines and fossil fuel projects. Last month, the Energy Department declared it would invest $625 million to revive the coal industry, which has faltered as natural gas and renewables gained traction.
“The administration is striving to synchronize the vocabulary through which we discuss environmental issues with policies supportive of increased drilling,” Jamieson explained. “The connection between language and policies is quite evident.”
As for techniques to counteract propaganda, Hobbs emphasized that solely relying on factual data—as scientists and journalists often do—might not be the most effective route. Long-standing research indicates that emotions can have a greater impact than facts when it comes to changing opinions. “You counter propaganda with propaganda,” she remarked. Climate advocates increasingly associate climate change with inflation and the escalating cost of living to resonate with Americans facing high energy expenses.
On a micro level, Hobbs noted success in online initiatives that facilitate sincere, open discussions about various propaganda subjects—from free speech considerations to the influence of social media figures. These discussions encouraged participants to reflect on conspiracy theories they had encountered, the feelings those narratives evoked, and which ones were detrimental. Participants were prompted to openly share their uncertainties and points of view—often leading them to realize that their beliefs were shaped by propaganda. Hobbs observed that individuals reduced their anxiety surrounding differing opinions and became more analytical about the information they were consuming.
“While we can’t avoid exposure to propaganda,” Hobbs suggested, “how we respond to it is ultimately our choice.”
