A weapon made in Washington

What is said in Washington does not stay in Washington. Politics is not just made — it is narrated. And whoever shapes the narrative ultimately shapes the direction of the debate. Disinformation is therefore not a side effect of populist movements; it is their daily business and their sharpest tool.

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, disinformation in the US is reaching new heights — or rather, new lows. One of its preferred battlegrounds, alongside migration, is climate and energy policy. In this context, climate disinformation is not a marginal issue. Researchers such as Michael E. Mann describe it as a deliberate return to familiar patterns: sow doubt, undermine trust, and buy time.

Trump himself plays a central role. International climate agreements, regulation, and renewable energy are routinely dismissed as a “scam” or “con job.” As Mann points out, this language is not incidental — it targets institutions and policy measures, delegitimising climate action as such.

The administration is not a bystander. Through executive orders, guidance, and personnel decisions, the White House intervenes directly. Climate policy is framed as ideological, anti-business, or a security risk. This becomes particularly effective where public knowledge infrastructures come under pressure. Climate information is removed or diluted on government websites. Rules on scientific integrity are weakened. At the same time, political pressure on agencies increases, eroding the authority of climate science.

The result is an information vacuum in which doubt spreads more easily and familiar disinformation narratives gain traction. This is particularly evident in government-affiliated reports, such as the 2025 study “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” by the U.S. Department of Energy. Climate scientists such as Robert Kopp (Rutgers University) and Andrew Dessler (Texas A&M) note that such documents may resemble science, but fall outside the expert mainstream. Old, debunked arguments are repackaged, uncertainty is overstated, and political conclusions often precede the analysis.

This is reinforced by a network of government-aligned think tanks that function as ideological and operational hinges. Institutions such as the Heritage Foundation — notorious particularly in connection with the Project 2025, a manifesto calling for a radical and authoritarian transformation of the United States — provide more than narratives. They develop detailed policy proposals, draft executive orders, and even prepare personnel pipelines for government positions. The America First Policy Institute plays a central role as a Trump-aligned ideas and communications hub, consistently framing climate policy as a cost, freedom, or security issue. These actors are less visible, but essential to the coherence and repetition of the message: think tanks design the blueprint, the government implements it.

Alongside this, a broader ecosystem of industry groups and associations links traditional fossil interests with culture-war framing. Open denial has largely disappeared. Instead, delay narratives dominate: climate action may be necessary in principle, but is framed as too costly, too fast, technologically unready, or harmful to jobs and competitiveness. At the same time, companies continue to speak publicly about “net zero” and “innovation” — while lobbying against binding regulation behind the scenes. Studies show that businesses often support climate goals in public while opposing concrete measures politically. This allows them to operate in both directions at once.

What emerges is a coordinated system. Trump provides the blunt, polarising rhetoric. The administration embeds it structurally. Think tanks supply arguments and personnel. Industry and aligned media amplify the message. The goal is clear: to prolong the fossil era.

Increasingly powerful — and politically significant for Europe — is the attack on efforts to address disinformation itself. Climate science, media, NGOs, and platform regulation are portrayed as part of an alleged system of “censorship” and suppression of free speech. This not only undermines climate policy, but also discredits any attempt to counter disinformation. The frame resonates with broader US debates on free speech and government overreach, reinforcing political polarisation.

This culture war does not stop at US borders. It is actively exported to Europe — particularly in debates over platform regulation, including measures against disinformation, hate speech, and coordinated influence campaigns.

The US government openly challenges such regulation. European rules and civil society initiatives are systematically framed as censorship and restrictions on free speech. This is not a side issue — it is part of a broader strategy. Under the banner of “free speech,” any form of platform oversight is attacked, regardless of whether it is democratically adopted, legally grounded, or carefully justified.

The message is aimed not only at governments, but at public discourse. The censorship narrative taps directly into long-standing claims of the far right: that elites suppress dissenting views, that national identity is under external control, and that critical voices are silenced. By adopting and internationalising these frames — as seen, for example, in JD Vance’s appearance at the Munich Security Conference in 2025 — the US administration lends them legitimacy and strengthens their political impact.

This strategy is particularly effective because it reframes concrete policy conflicts. European digital laws, measures against hate speech, and anti-disinformation programmes are no longer presented as protections of democratic space. Instead, they are portrayed as attacks on freedom and sovereignty. The accusation of “censorship” has itself become a political instrument. Under the banner of free speech, democratic regulation of platforms is challenged. This benefits right-wing actors, who have long relied on these narratives. What began as a US domestic culture war now has tangible political effects in Europe.

Right-wing parties and movements can now count on support from Washington. Combined with backing from Moscow, this is likely to significantly sharpen their tools. The US administration is actively reshaping the environment in which political debates in Europe take place. This is particularly relevant for climate disinformation: weakening the rules and actors that expose manipulation strengthens those who thrive on simplification, delay, and polarisation.

In this context, climate policy is both target and vehicle. Clean energy is inherently opposed by fossil interests. At the same time, climate policy brings underlying conflicts to the surface — over lifestyles, identity, change, and distribution. But the broader objective goes further: eroding trust in public institutions, shifting the boundaries of what is considered legitimate, and systematically weakening democratic processes. Portraying protections against hate speech and disinformation as censorship does not just challenge individual policies. It strikes at the foundations of democratic coexistence.

Climate policy thus becomes a testing ground — and an entry point — for a broader attack on liberal democracy and open societies.