Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.

Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Trump’s nomination of fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary inspired this Democratic bill.


The bill

The BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act would bar fossil fuel industry executives or lobbyists from certain politically-appointed administration positions for 10 years after leaving that private sector job.

The legislation would bar them from serving in 19 specific positions that deal with energy or the environment in some form – including Secretaries of Energy, State, Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, plus Administrators of NASA and the EPA.

It would also bar them from serving in any politically-appointed positions (including at levels below the actual department head) for nine entire departments or agencies.

The acronym BIG OIL in the title stands for Banning In Government Oil Industry Lobbyists.

The Senate bill was introduced on January 21 by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Context

President Trump’s Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, was the founder and CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy. Wright seems poised to pursue energy policies favoring the oil, coal, and natural gas industries, which Democrats largely oppose on environmental grounds.

Wright was confirmed by the Senate in February by 59-38, with Republicans approving him unanimously and Democrats largely opposing him by 8-38. The eight Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents who crossed party lines: Michael Bennet (CO), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Maggie Hassan (NH), Martin Heinrich (NM), John Hickenlooper (CO), Angus King (ME), Ben Ray Luján (NM), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).

Trump’s first term also featured fossil fuel executives serving in top positions, such as ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State in 2017-18.

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that top federal policymakers should be free of undue financial or occupational influence, particularly given recent natural disasters.

“Especially in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires and more frequent and dangerous disasters fueled by climate change, we can't afford to have a fossil fuel CEO like Chris Wright help the industry capture our federal agencies further for oil profits,” Sen. Markey said in a press release. “We must have government agencies helmed by responsible, qualified executives without blatant conflicts of interest.”

Or as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it during the confirmation hearing for Trump’s EPA nominee Lee Zeldin, after a phone audibly rang: “That was the fossil fuel industry.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that that a fossil fuel executive may actually be the most qualified person, given how expensive and unpopular they contend that Democrats’ environmental policies are.

“If we really want an all-of-the-above energy policy for our nation, we need people like Chris Wright, who understand all aspects of energy and have the knowledge and capability needed to drive the latest, greatest technology and truly make the U.S. energy-dominant,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “I can’t think of anyone better able to do just that, based on his training, education, accomplishments, and experience.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted one fellow Democratic cosponsor: Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). It now awaits an unlikely vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.

Sen. Markey previously introduced the bill in 2019, but it never received a committee vote. Republicans also controlled the chamber at the time.

No House companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.


SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term


Read More

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots on March 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:

  • The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
  • The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
  • The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.

If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."

Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing

Both chambers of Congress are in session this week and next. The House will probably function about like it has been - lots of votes (often by voice) on uncontroversial bills; many fewer votes on Republican priority bills. Lots of hearings this week and a few legislator updates.

Committee Meetings

Both chambers have a busy week with 64 total committee meetings scheduled.

Keep ReadingShow less