As states and localities intensify their lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, seeking accountability for the climate crisis, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has launched a controversial narrative. During a recent Senate hearing, he alleged that China is financially backing these climate lawsuits to undermine U.S. oil and gas producers and bolster Beijing’s dominance in global energy markets. According to Cruz, if these lawsuits succeed, they would lead to a decline in U.S. energy production and rising prices, benefiting China, which he claims is “paying the bills.”
However, Cruz’s office has yet to provide any evidence to substantiate these allegations. A spokesperson for Cruz, Macarena Martinez, referred to a response from ChatGPT, which indicated that “what’s not publicly demonstrated (so far) is a direct, documented grant-to-lawsuit pipeline.”
Cruz’s assertions form part of a broader, longstanding effort by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to counteract growing climate litigation. Environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers argue that these lawsuits claim that corporations have misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuels, which are the primary drivers of climate change. The litigation aims to secure funding to help communities mitigate the impacts of climate change, including more frequent hurricanes, severe flooding, and extreme heat waves.
In recent years, Republican lawmakers have scrutinized the funding sources of environmental movements in the U.S. This investigation has increasingly focused on climate litigation as it gains momentum across the country. This summer, a coalition of Republican state attorneys general even urged the federal government to enact laws shielding energy companies from what they call “activist-funded climate lawsuits.”
Ryan Meyers, general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute (API)—a trade group representing the oil and gas industry—described the climate lawsuits as “baseless” and part of a “coordinated campaign” against energy companies. He asserted that climate policy should be addressed in Congress, not through a fragmented judicial system.
The API declined to comment specifically on Cruz’s claim regarding Chinese funding. However, experts suggest that framing U.S. climate litigation as a China-backed initiative is a tactical maneuver aimed at rallying opposition. John Chung-En Liu, an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University, pointed out that this framing aligns with negative perceptions of China in Washington, D.C., and could be used to influence public opinion.
Despite Cruz’s provocative claims, the Chinese embassy in Washington has not responded to requests for comment on the matter. The alleged funding scheme cited by Cruz involves a nonprofit called Energy Foundation China, which is based in San Francisco and has ties to Chinese climate policy. Cruz characterized it as “one of the primary vehicles” for a coalition between “leftist billionaires, radical environmental organizations, and the Chinese Communist Party,” alleging that the organization funnels money into litigation efforts targeting U.S. energy companies.
While it is true that Energy Foundation China has provided funding to several prominent environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Rocky Mountain Institute, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, challenged Cruz’s claims at the June hearing. He stated that Cruz had not provided evidence that these funds were used for U.S. lawsuits rather than climate initiatives in China.
“Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed the need for caution regarding Cruz’s allegations, stating, “If it turns out that China is supporting lawsuits in the United States, that would be extremely troubling. And so I think we should be very careful to actually know what’s real and what’s not.”
Spokespersons for the affected organizations, including the NRDC, maintained that their funding from Energy Foundation China is designated for programs aimed at mitigating climate pollution in China, and they do not engage in litigation funded by Chinese sources. Vance Wagner, an executive at Energy Foundation China, emphasized that the nonprofit is independent and does not engage in activism or lobbying outside of China.
Just days before Cruz’s accusations, over a dozen Republican state attorneys general had sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the Justice Department to recommend legislation that would provide energy companies with legal immunity against climate litigation—similar to protections afforded under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits.
Critics argue that Cruz’s allegations are designed to create a political cover for Congress to grant fossil fuel companies legal immunity from accountability for climate-related damages. Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports climate lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, argued that communities are merely asking for the oil industry to pay its fair share for the damages they cause.
Legal battles surrounding climate lawsuits have resulted in mixed outcomes thus far. While some cases have been dismissed on the grounds that climate pollution is a federal issue, others are progressing toward trial. The Supreme Court recently rejected efforts by oil and gas companies to block climate lawsuits filed by Honolulu and other states.
Wiles contended, “All these communities are asking is that the oil industry pay their fair share of the damages that they knowingly cause. It’s completely reasonable.”
As climate litigation continues to evolve, the implications of Cruz’s claims and the overarching political narratives surrounding these lawsuits remain a crucial battleground in the ongoing fight against climate change and corporate accountability.
