Fine is the project manager for the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and a Public Voices Fellow on the Climate Crisis.
When it comes to climate change, newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson may be on the same page as many of his fellow Republican lawmakers, but his views are far from those of most of his constituents in Louisiana, as well as most Republican voters and 81 of Johnson’s Republican colleagues who make up the Conservative Climate Caucus.
According to the League of Conservation Voters, Johnson never voted for pro-environment legislation in 2022 while the American Energy Alliance gave him a 100 percent rating in 2022. This is not surprising as the oil and gas industry has provided more funding to Johnson over his political career than any other industry.
Yet Louisiana is impacted by climate change in real time. The state just had its hottest and third driest summer on record, creating prime conditions for 500 large fires in August alone, which is almost the yearly state average. Most adults in Louisiana understand that climate change is happening and that it’s affecting the weather, and they are worried about it.
The majority of Louisianans say Congress should do more to address climate change. Yet when Congress passed its most significant climate legislation to date, the Inflation Reduction Act, Johnson relabeled it the “Inflation Expansion Act” and tweeted that it would “send hundreds of billions of tax dollars to green energy slush funds.”
Support for the legislation is high across the country with 71 percent of American voters supporting the IRA, including 57 percent of liberal and moderate Republicans. Despite strong support for the meaure, one of the first actions in the House under Johnson’s leadership was to pass a bill cutting key pieces of the legislation. This is despite the fact that the IRA will bring $1.2 billion in investment and about one thousand new jobs to his home state for new major clean energy projects. Nationally, there is more investment in red states than in blue states thanks to the IRA.
In a 2017 town hall, Johnson claimed the climate is changing due to natural cycles in the atmosphere, not “because we drive SUVs.” Virtually all climate scientists disagree and only 28 percent of Americans agree with Johnson that climate change is mostly caused by natural changes in the environment. Those in the audience did not appear to be on the same page as Johnson either. Also, while Louisianans may indeed be driving SUVs, 74 percent of them support tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles.
Unlike Johnson, many Republican voters and members of Congress want climate action. Twenty-seven percent of Republican voters are alarmed or concerned about climate change. They tend to be Republicans who are younger, female, moderates, people of color, or they live in suburban areas. Over the past 10 years, Republicans increasingly have said that global warming will harm people in the United States, with 64 percent of liberal and moderate Republicans and 32 percent of conservative Republicans currently holding this view.
Across party lines, from Louisiana to Los Angeles, the majority of people want a stable climate and support climate solutions. Our chances of successfully tackling climate change drop drastically with Mike Johnson as speaker of the House, given the power he exerts on the legislative process. If you, like most of the country, want cleaner air and a bright future for our kids, demand that our leaders in Congress listen to the will of the people, not lobbyist interests.






















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.