Common Dreams, on Climate, 10 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Days After Midterm Blowout, 22 Democrats Join GOP to Advance 'Massive Giveaway' to Big Oil

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

The US Senate on Monday voted in bipartisan fashion to advance a fossil fuel industry-backed permitting reform bill that would weaken the Clean Water Act and other key environmental protections to make it easier for the federal government to streamline energy projects—including climate-wrecking gas pipelines.

The 73-25 vote to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) sets the stage for what's expected to be a contentious amendment process. The bill's Democratic supporters—including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chuck Schumer of New York—. Environmentalists, tribal organizations, and progressive lawmakers say the legislation is a gift to fossil fuel companies, tech giants, and other corporate interests at the expense of local communities and the planet."

The Senate’s supporters of BAAJA just cleared an initial hurdle towards offering Big Oil and Big Tech a massive giveaway at the expense of our clean air, clean water, and communities' right to protect themselves from polluting projects," said Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International. "Just days after voters demanded accountability and relief from soaring costs, 73 senators chose Trump’s energy policies over the American people."“BAAJA is not a compromise—it’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," Bast added.

The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House—which has waged war on clean energy projects while working to boost fossil fuel production—and the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US. Trump said Monday that he would not approve the construction of any wind turbines, .

The bill would exempt pipeline expansions and other energy projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and make it harder for opponents of the projects to challenge them in court. The legislation would also restrict courts' ability to pause projects due to inadequate environmental reviews.Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the 25 senators who voted against advancing BAAJA on Monday, said in a statement that while the legislation "has a number of other features that merit careful analysis," it "has never had a public hearing" despite its potentially massive impact.Merkley warned that, as currently written, the bill "accelerates the extraction and burning of fossil fuels," effectively offsetting the benefits of the measure's promotion of clean energy projects.“The bill restricts states’ ability to raise and address clean water concerns on gas pipelines as well as transmission lines," said Merkley.

"It shortens timelines that make it hard-to-impossible for grassroots and community groups to raise concerns about projects. It eliminates tools that states and localities use to fight the development of new data centers and detention centers. And it impacts the sovereignty and rights of tribes.""Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," the senator added. "But the current bill raises too many serious issues that require more deliberation."Environmental groups and tribal organizations urged lawmakers to pause consideration of the permitting bill until the next Congress, when Democrats will take control of the House and the Senate.“We shouldn’t and don’t need to endanger our wildlife just to save a few dollars on gas," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America.

"We shouldn’t and don’t need to weaken the rules that protect our water from pollution in order to build more clean energy. We shouldn’t facilitate more global-warming air pollution. And we definitely shouldn’t be taking away the public’s right to weigh in on projects that can ruin their environment, make them sick, and lessen their quality of life.”

Read the original article on commondreams.org (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

Common Dreams reports a 73-25 Senate vote to advance the BAAJA permitting bill, names the bill's Democratic supporters and their argument, and identifies the American Petroleum Institute as the oil and gas trade association. In its own voice the outlet says a Trump remark about wind turbines confirmed how the White House sees the bill, though the article gives no White House statement about the bill itself. The bill's supporters get one paraphrased sentence against several directly quoted critics.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “confirming critics' fears that the White House sees the bill as an opportunity to advance dirty energy projects”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the outlet says Trump's wind turbine remark 'confirmed' what the White House thinks of the bill.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is established that the White House views the bill as a vehicle for dirty energy projects.
    The context
    The article reports only that Trump said he would not approve wind turbines. It gives no statement from the White House about the bill itself. That link is the critics' reading, not something the remark shows.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House”

    Show it in the article

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects”

    Why this matters
    The bill's supporters get this single paraphrased clause. Bast, Merkley and Frank get several direct quotes each.
    The impression it gives
    A reader hears the critics' case at length and in their own words, and the supporters' case only in a summary line.
    The context
    Whitehouse, Heinrich and Schumer are named, but none of them is quoted. The outlet's own earlier piece says they argued the benefits outweigh what Republicans demanded, and that argument is not developed here.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US”

    It names the oil and gas lobby behind the bill for what it is, so the reader knows whose interests the backing represents.

  • “argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects”

    It names the bill's Democratic supporters and gives their stated reason, so the reader is not left with the critics' view alone.

  • “has a number of other features that merit careful analysis”

    It keeps Merkley's qualification about the bill rather than quoting only his criticism.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Common Dreams

  1. 9 Nov'Without Demarcation, There Is No Climate Solution,' Brazilian Indigenous Leader Tells COP310.0
  2. 9 NovGreen Groups Boost Pressure on Schumer to Block Permitting Bill That Guts Environmental Protections6.0
  3. 9 Nov'Off the Charts': UN Sounds Alarm as Planet Plunges Deeper Into Climate Emergency0.0
  4. 8 NovDespite Midterm Win, Are Democrats About to Help GOP Pass 'Massive Giveaway' to Big Oil and Big Tech?3.0
  5. 8 NovCOP31: Will Countries Finally Deliver on Their Climate Promises?0.0

Everything we scored from Common Dreams