The midterm elections are less than a week away, and there’s a lot riding on the results, including how much more damage Donald Trump can do to the climate. But for how important this election will be for Planet Earth and the humans who live on it, the issue itself isn’t getting much airtime. Earlier this month, The Guardian examined the campaign websites of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates in eight battleground states. Of all the candidates surveyed, only two explicitly mentioned climate change. This retreat hasn’t happened by accident. Over the last two years, some of the Democratic Party’s most influential strategists, donors, and think tanks have been explicitly telling candidates to shut up about climate change and focus on the economy instead—as if those were two separate issues. It’s a strategy known as climate hushing. And with the midterms fast-approaching, it’s worth asking: Who convinced Democrats that ignoring climate change was a winning strategy? Does the evidence actually support that argument? And what is that silence costing the rest of us? These are the questions I explored in the today’s episode of the HEATED podcast, alongside my producer Tracy Wholf and Aaron Regunberg, who directs the Climate Accountability Project at Public Citizen (but was speaking in his personal capacity). We also took a closer look at some of the country’s most consequential Senate races to see who’s avoiding climate change, who’s still talking about it, and what those differences reveal. You can listen to our full conversation above, find HEATED on your favorite podcast app, watch on YouTube, or read an edited and condensed transcript of our conversation below. HEATED is a 100 percent reader- and listener-funded publication. We don’t take ads, sponsorships, or put our journalism behind paywalls. The reporting, editing, and production that go into these episodes are possible because of generous readers and listeners. If you appreciate truly independent climate journalism and have the means, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support keeps this work free for everyone. Should Democrats stop talking about climate change? TRACY WHOLF: Emily, we’ve seen some extraordinary climate extremes this year, from deadly heat waves around the globe to devastating floods. And yet climate change seems to be getting very little attention in this election. Why? EMILY ATKIN: I think there are several reasons, but one of the biggest is that Democrats have been explicitly told by some of their most influential funders, advisers, and think tanks to keep quiet about it. TRACY: That’s crazy to me, because climate is an issue where Democrats have a pretty clear advantage over Republicans. So who’s saying this and why?EMILY: To understand that, I spoke with Aaron Regunberg, who earlier this year wrote an excellent article for Boston Review called “Why Climate Politics Can’t Wait,”examining the growing push for climate hushing. He said you really have to go back to the aftermath of Kamala Harris’s loss in 2024. AARON REGUNBERG: We just started hearing a lot of people saying that we’re losing because Democrats are talking too much about climate change. There was this big narrative struggle happening within the Democratic Party apparatus in that moment to explain what happened and who’s to blame. I do think the climate hushing angle was a very convenient scapegoat for a lot of people who didn’t want to talk about maybe some of the other reasons that we lost. TRACY: So who were the groups pushing that argument? EMILY: One was Third Way, a powerful centrist Washington think tank that’s been advising Democrats for decades. Even before Harris lost, Third Way was arguing that Democrats should focus less on climate and more on people’s bills. Another was Welcome PAC, which supports moderate Democrats. After the election, it released a report arguing that Democrats needed to focus less on progressive issues like climate change and more on the economy, crime, and immigration. And both organizations are awash in wealthy, corporate backers. Third Way has received support from major corporate interests, including the Business Roundtable. Welcome PAC’s donors have included LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, members of the Walton family, and major Wall Street investors. But perhaps the most influential argument came from the Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank that launched in 2025 with a reported $10 million annual budget backed by billionaires. One of its first major publications was a September 2025 memo titled The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change. TRACY: That’s pretty explicit. So what was the argument? Does climate change actually swing votes? EMILY: The biggest argument, and the one you hear repeated across these reports, is that climate change doesn’t swing votes. Searchlight’s memo found that 61 percent of battleground swing voters considered climate change at least a very serious problem. But only 6 percent named it as their top issue, and only 22 percent ranked it among their top three priorities. So the recommendation was that Democrats should focus on what swing voters say matters most to them: affordability, jobs, and health care. TRACY: But just because climate change isn’t someone’s number-one priority doesn’t mean it won’t influence their vote. I’m not a single-issue voter. I don’t think most people are. EMILY: Exactly. Just because someone ranks health care first and climate change fourth doesn’t mean their candidate’s position on climate is irrelevant. And Aaron pointed out something really interesting about Searchlight’s research: Its own polling seems to contradict its conclusions. AARON: That actual data found that 76 percent of these battleground swing-state voters think that the Democratic Party is either somewhat or completely in step with them on issues related to climate change, compared to only 16 percent who say Democrats are out of step. And then when you look at the folks who say it is out of step, and you ask why, the number-one reason that voters give is they say that Democrats are not fighting hard enough or need to do more on climate change. EMILY: So basically, most of these swing voters disagree with Republicans about climate change. And among those who don’t align with Democrats, the biggest complaint is that Democrats aren’t doing enough. That seems like an enormous missed opportunity to distinguish themselves from Republicans. TRACY: And there’s other evidence supporting that. In its 2026 battleground-state polling, the Environmental Voter Project found that 59 percent of likely midterm voters wanted politicians to spend more time talking about climate change and pollution, while only 17 percent wanted less. Which raises the question: If so many people want to hear more about climate change, why are political strategists so convinced it shouldn’t be discussed? The strange idea that climate change and affordability are separate issues EMILY: Well, another argument in Searchlight’s memo is that climate change feels distant from voters’ everyday lives. According to its polling, only 17 percent of battleground swing voters believed climate change was affecting their families a great deal right now. So the argument is that talking about climate can seem out of touch when voters have more immediate concerns. TRACY: I understand that people are concerned about rising energy prices, groceries, housing, and health care. I feel those pressures too. But I also understand that all these things are connected to climate change. A study published by MIT researchers in February found that climate change is already costing American households an estimated $400 to $900 annually on average, through a range of impacts including insurance costs, extreme-weather damage, and higher utility bills. EMILY: Right. And I don’t think those connections are necessarily obvious to everyone. But that’s what campaigning … This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit heated.world/subscribe
