Republican lawmakers are trying to keep big oil companies from paying for contributing to the climate crisis, alarming environmentalists.
New bills in the House and Senate, led by Wyoming Representative Harriet Hageman and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, respectively, would give oil and gas companies broad legal immunity from policies and lawsuits aimed at holding the industry accountable for emissions losses.
The proposal, called the Stop Climate Change Act of 2026, would protect the sector from legal liability. The law is similar to a 2005 law that largely blocked lawsuits against the firearms industry over gun violence.
The Republican proposal aims to halt the proliferation of climate change liability measures launched by state and local governments, which Hagemann’s office called in a statement “a left-wing legal campaign to punish legitimate activities.” In recent years, more than 70 states and local governments have sued oil companies for misleading the public about the dangers of their products. Meanwhile, New York and Vermont have also passed climate change “Superfund” laws that would require major polluters to pay damages for past emissions, and other states are considering similar policies.
If passed, the new federal law would dismiss pending climate change liability lawsuits, invalidate all climate change superfund laws, and block future similar efforts.
Delta Melner, lead scientist for the Climate Litigation Science Hub at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group, said these proposals undermine the foundations of climate accountability.
For example, Hagemann said in a statement that his bill would “affirm” that the federal government has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over greenhouse gas regulation, but legal experts dispute that, Melner noted. Melner said the language “seeks to take away the ability to determine regional harm at the local and state level.”
Mr. Cruz’s bill, on the other hand, seeks to discredit climate attribution studies (scientific analyzes that quantify how much the climate crisis has changed the likelihood or severity of certain extreme weather events), which are the basis for some climate legal claims.
“It’s really concerning that the law is trying to distance science from science,” Marner said.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the nation’s top oil lobby, said earlier this year that stopping “abusive” climate change lawsuits is a top priority. A few months ago, 16 Republican state attorneys general asked the Justice Department for a “liability shield” for oil companies. And last year, both API and energy giant ConocoPhillips also pressed Congress on legislation that would limit their liability for climate change.
“Immunity is clearly something the industry has been chasing,” said Cassidy DiPaola of the climate superfund group Make Polluters Pay. “We’re in a period where there’s a trifecta of Republicans basically capitulating to industry, and I think they see this moment as one of their biggest opportunities to get that.”
Industry groups have praised the federal proposal. In a joint statement, Mike Somers, CEO of API, and Chet Thompson, CEO of the influential fuel lobby group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, thanked Hageman and Cruz for passing the bill, saying, “Congress must act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end activist-led state overreach.”
Asked about supporters’ concerns about the new policy proposals, API cited an earlier statement in the Guardian.
The bill’s introduction comes as red states also propose blocking climate change lawsuits and Superfund legislation. Tennessee passed a bill last week to block large-scale oil liability, and Utah greenlit a similar bill earlier this month. DiPaola said other states are considering similar policies, but none are as clear in their goals as the federal proposal.
“I’m honestly shocked that members of Congress are speaking so bluntly,” she said. “We expected us to be a little more cautious, but they’re not hiding the ball at all. They’re saying it up front: ‘You can’t hold us accountable.’
The industry and its allies have made other attempts to block climate accountability efforts, including challenging Superfund laws in court and trying to get lawsuits thrown out.
“In some ways, this federal bill feels like the culmination of a multi-layered strategy that we’ve been watching unfold, where the fossil fuel industry is attacking climate accountability on multiple fronts at once,” Marner said.
The industry has seen mixed results. For example, some climate change lawsuits have been dismissed. But last week, a federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit aimed at pre-empting Hawaii’s lawsuit against Big Oil.
“The industry knows it’s vulnerable,” Marner said. “They don’t have complete confidence that they can win the case on their own merits.”
Former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has recently expressed concern about the fossil fuel industry’s desire for liability immunity, especially after Hageman suggested in February that a federal proposal was on the table.
“Every elected official who puts the interests of their constituents ahead of the interests of corporate polluters should oppose this shameful proposal,” Inslee said in a statement.
It’s unclear whether Republicans will be able to muster the votes to pass the bill as written. But these bills could help lay the groundwork for similar bills to be incorporated into larger legislation that must be passed. Alternatively, a bill could go through the reconciliation process if it can be passed with a simple majority rather than the filibuster threshold of 60 votes.
“I don’t think the strategy is to pass this bill as a standalone bill,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports lawsuits against the oil industry. “But bad things can happen at any time and we have to be prepared for it.”
Wiles said the federal law would “obscure” the objectives of oil industry allies.
“If there was ever any doubt that they would do something so egregious and damaging to the justice system and people’s right to go to court to seek redress, there is no doubt now,” he said.
