The political winds have shifted in Washington, D.C., and the climate movement is once again reassessing its strategy. With Republicans in control of Congress and Donald Trump as president, climate advocates and funders are weighing where to focus their efforts: double down on federal engagement or pivot to state-level action.
Unfortunately, many in climate philanthropy are choosing door No. 2, at the expense of door No. 1. The shuttering of Breakthrough Energy’s federal policy team is one of the clearest signals yet that funders are pulling back from Washington. Especially in light of expectations that the Trump administration may attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of climate nonprofits (though it is holding off for the moment), the underlying assumption seems to be: Because Trump is back in the White House, there’s little hope of federal climate progress. Better to wait out the storm and make progress elsewhere in the meantime. This impulse is understandable but also dangerously misguided.
In truth, now is exactly the moment when philanthropy must lean into federal engagement. Retreating from Washington may feel safe, but it’s a strategic miscalculation for four key reasons.
1. The next four years aren’t the exception — they’re the norm
The biggest barrier to sustained federal climate action isn’t Donald Trump. It’s the long-term structure of U.S. politics. Unified Democratic control of the federal government — currently the only viable path for partisan climate legislation — happens, on average, just once every 14 years. If climate action depends solely on one party, progress will always be fragile and fleeting. The only durable route forward is through bipartisan support. That may be a tough pill for some in the climate movement to swallow, but it’s a fact we ignore at our peril.
2. No other arena comes close to matching the emissions impact of federal action
State efforts are critically important, but only the U.S. federal government can cut carbon at the scale currently needed. A single ambitious piece of federal legislation, like the Inflation Reduction Act, can shift entire industries and markets, unlocking trillions in private capital. Even modest philanthropic efforts that increase the odds of such legislation can pay off massively.
3. The climate movement hasn’t really tried bipartisan strategy yet, and it should
Many in the environmental movement talk about the need for bipartisan progress. But if you follow the money, the story is very different. In recent years, less than 1% of climate philanthropy has supported right-of-center organizing. That’s not a strategic calculation; it’s a blind spot. And it means we’re trying to build a political coalition for decarbonization while overlooking half the electorate.
The lack of investment has real consequences. Many key constituencies in conservative America (farmers, veterans, business owners, faith leaders) are natural allies for clean energy and climate resilience. Yet they remain largely unengaged because there’s no well-funded infrastructure to reach them, build trust or connect climate action to their values. Meanwhile, the political right lacks the climate-focused civil society support, media reinforcement and advocacy networks that have long mobilized action on the left. That’s not just an imbalance — it’s an opportunity. With even modest investment, we could start to change the political map for climate.
The partisan politics of climate change aren’t a reason to pull back from federal engagement. They’re a flashing neon sign pointing to a strategy climate philanthropy has not yet tried: meaningfully investing in right-of-center organizing and institution-building. If climate philanthropy wants to play the long game — and win — it can’t afford to keep sitting on the sidelines of conservative America.
We must build durable, cross-partisan support for decarbonization.
4. Bipartisan openings are real — and growing
The political right is not a monolith, and recent developments show real promise. In March, even as Trump’s actions dominated the news, 21 House Republicans signed a letter supporting key clean energy tax provisions at the heart of the U.S. decarbonization strategy.
That’s not a fluke. When the Biden administration and climate advocates designed the Inflation Reduction Act, they made a calculated bet: that by channeling clean energy investment into red and purple communities, they could foster a new coalition for climate rooted in local prosperity. Now, nearly 75% of those investments are flowing into Republican districts and lawmakers are responding — including to protect their districts from the Trump administration’s threats to freeze outgoing funds.
But political identity doesn’t shift on a short timeline. Translation takes time and — as made abundantly clear by leading climate communications research — requires the organizing of trusted messengers and local institutions.
That’s the work of civil society. And it’s work that’s far from finished. To walk away now wouldn’t just mean missing an opportunity. It would mean abandoning the very strategy that climate advocates put forward, just as it begins to bear fruit. The Inflation Reduction Act was always a long-term play: designed to turn investment into support, jobs into votes, and shared prosperity into lasting political alignment.
Federal engagement may be hard, but it is essential. And it is far from hopeless. Walking away from Washington now would mean ceding the most powerful lever for climate action we have and forgoing the opportunity to build something truly lasting.
Climate philanthropy can and must adapt to the new political reality. But adaptation does not mean retreat. It means evolving our strategies, expanding our coalitions and investing in the hard, necessary work of bipartisan progress.
Now is not the time to flinch. It’s the moment to finish what we started.
Rayan Semery-Palumbo is a final-stage PhD candidate in Public Policy at the University of Oxford and former director of government affairs for a leading climate technology start-up. He is a Rhodes Scholar.
