Why ‘Climate Hushing’ is Coming to an Election Near You

When Donald Trump was re-elected in 2024, many consultants and pundits began searching for the ultimate cause of his ability to win twice in a deeply divided nation. That process has included a lot of soul-searching in the Democratic Party since the election, and lots of discussion on the path forward. 

Two schools of thought have emerged from this debate. The first, represents a doubling down on core issues that appeal to the Democratic base, exemplified in the campaigns that have leaned into strong messages about topics like healthcare and social issues. The belief of this school is that mainstream Democratic politicians haven’t gone far enough in articulating a vision of the future that voters can get behind.

The second school is the exact opposite. It believes the excesses of the pandemic era require a return to ‘issues voters care about.’ Here, the significant conventional wisdom is to “play down” what consultants perceive as more ‘divisive’ topics to appeal to a broader base. This has included climate change.

The most evident example of this came to a head during the contentious primary season earlier this year, when the New York Times ran a piece titled Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore. In it, Matthew Huber argues that:

“The Democratic Party remains deeply unpopular. The way out is to stop elevating a litany of single-issue policies that appeal to the already converted. When it comes to climate change, for now, it might be better to say nothing at all.”

This has since evolved into a piece of stock advice for a certain subset of more center-left candidates, with notable consultancies and pundits hopping on board. Even climate groups have leaned into this advice, pivoting to affordability and energy independence as leading messages. But is the move to turn climate change into a backburner issue the right move? A new study by UC Santa Barbara reaffirms some of the problems with this approach.

Here’s the short of it: researchers surveyed over 3,000 U.S. adults, asking them about their support for “a government program to invest in wind and solar.”

Then, they changed the reasoning for the project among different test groups, telling some people the project was to “fight climate change” while telling others it was for goals like “developing new energy sources” or “reducing pollution.” Mentioning climate change did not change support for the project. Most notably: “About 60 percent of the Republicans surveyed would back such a policy, and using the word ‘climate’ didn’t dent their support.”

Similar studies by George Mason University and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication find the same results. In “YPCCC Insights on Climate Change and the 2026 U.S. Primaries,” both universities find: “Most registered voters would prefer to vote for a candidate who supports action on global warming, including a large majority of Democrats and many liberal/moderate Republicans.”

Why does it matter if candidates don’t talk about climate? It risks minimizing the issue in the public discourse. Humans are social creatures, and there is a strong visibility effect to climate action. For example, one of the strongest predictors of someone getting solar panels is having someone nearby who has them, according to a 2012 study in the Journal of Economic Geography.

The same is true with supporting climate change action. In Dr. Katharine Hayhoe’s book Saving Us, she emphasizes the importance of hearing about climate change, particularly from a trusted messenger, is one of the most effective ways to convert those who are skeptical.

Despite that, only 33% of households in Michigan report regularly talking about climate change with friends and family. When campaigns, Republican or Democrat, forgo talking about climate change, they ultimately lose the opportunity to change minds and get people behind environmental policies.

Despite this fact, many consultancies are still moving in the opposite direction.

Third Way, a self-described “national think tank and advocacy organization that champions moderate policy and political ideas,” held a post-election retreat in Loudoun County, Virginia, in early 2025. It was attended by a number of politicians and political operatives whose names were kept private. However, an attendee shared a five-page list of takeaways with Politico, who then released them.

In its messaging guide from the retreat, Third Way offered this diagnosis: “The emphasis on climate change [by Democrats] is seen as harming job opportunities and economic growth, especially in working-class communities.” A separate Third Way report went further, outlining Kamala Harris’s so-called popular and unpopular positions. Among the no-nos: talking about “transformative change” on climate. Instead, the group advised Democrats to frame the issue around energy independence — “continuing to produce more oil than any country in history and exploring clean energy opportunities that will create more jobs and stimulate the economy.”

The Searchlight Institute, another Democratic-aligned think tank, took a related but distinct approach: rather than reframe climate messaging, sidestep it entirely. Democrats, they argued, “could do climate change quietly, and instead focus on affordability.” In September 2025, the institute published a report titled “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.” Notably, the report concedes that vast majorities of voters already agree with climate action — its opening line states, “While battleground voters overwhelmingly agree climate change is a problem, addressing it is not a priority for them.” The only evidence offered for that claim, however, is that other issues simply ranked higher on a survey, hardly sound science for drawing such sweeping conclusions.

This perspective, I argue, has the potential to do long-term damage. The road ahead on climate is hard, and it will require us to think deeply about land use, about costs, and what we value. Hiding the strongest reasons we need wind and solar behind other agendas or platforms misleads people and doesn’t build the interclass, intersectional coalition needed to achieve transformative change.

I would be remiss not to point out that most successful social movements didn’t spend decades hiding their goals, even when they were deeply unpopular in their time. Two-thirds of people were against the March on Washington when it happened on August 28, 1963. But people fought for what they believed in, and what was right, and that moved the nation toward the much-celebrated Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Climate action, by contrast, is already above water in virtually all polling. Two-thirds of Michiganders — and Americans at large — say the U.S. economy should transition from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050.

So, there is very little benefit in sneaking around the word “climate.” The evidence strongly suggests it won’t hurt you even in your tightest races, and it will probably even do some long-term good. Democrats, Republicans, and Americans of all stripes are more on board than we’ve been told. Let’s use that to our advantage to enact positive change, not run away from one of the strongest issues that unites Americans.