My piece for The Washington Post on how climate litigation lands on consumers as a hidden tax.

Never mind that taxing the companies that heat your home and fuel your car doesn’t merely vanish into the corporate ledger. The price lands on you, the consumer. An independent estimate in 2022 pegged the suits’ penalty at 31 cents per gallon of gasoline for every $100 billion in damages awarded, or roughly $326 per household per year.

This is climate lawfare, the process of using litigation to impose energy policies that haven’t been achieved through the democratic process… A single favorable ruling in a handpicked jurisdiction can set a precedent that reshapes national energy policy without a vote from a single elected legislator.

Read the full piece here.

My latest, on Republican views on Iran, the midterms and 2028.

Greetings from sunny Ocean Isle Beach, NC, where the Donovan clan is riding out Spring Break. Yesterday I took a break for a poolside chat with New York Times opinion editor John Guida, who was looking for an inside take on the mood among Republicans heading into November. Having been unplugged for the past six weeks, my perspective is less oriented by the online hive mind than it otherwise might be. And while I have been derelict in this space over the same period, the forgiving format of Q&A—the lazy man’s oped—was too good to pass up. What was published is a lightly trimmed version of our real-time conversation. (Sadly no OIB dateline.)
On what congressional Republicans actually think about the Iran war:
“The posture of the congressional G.O.P. reflects where their constituents are — instinctually wary of protracted involvement in the Middle East, uncertain as to exactly what our current objectives are in Iran and relieved by the cease-fire to the extent they are following closely. They’re eager to give this president the benefit of the doubt, and his willingness to speak out against previous misadventures gives him additional credibility in the near term even as it has confounded expectations.”
On the midterm environment:
“A great presidential cycle like the one Republicans had in 2024 is a double-edged sword. It’s fun to win elections, it’s exhilarating to control the levers of power, but there’s inevitably an electoral hangover… Heading into November, the G.O.P. has three things going for it — a constrained House map, forgiving Senate terrain, and an unpopular Democratic Party going through an identity crisis of its own. The wild card is time; seven months is a political eternity, especially in the Trump era.”
On 2028:
“In my mind the binary is order versus disorder. An orderly 2028, which I would expect at this point, is the conventional path where the vice president takes the mantle from a popular, term-limited president and romps to victory in a primary where would-be challengers read the writing on the wall and stay out. It’s not about JD Vance versus any particular candidate — if it’s not JD Vance, it’s a free-for-all.”

Read the full piece here.

I sat down with John Guida for a New York Times conversation on what congressional Republicans actually think about the war in Iran, why the party’s connection to Trump has reshaped how its members understand representation, and whether that connection is healthy for a political party.

John Guida: The war in Iran has not been popular among the American public (many Republicans excepted). Congressional Republicans gave the president a wide berth to conduct military operations. What is your sense of what these (and other) Republicans really think about the war?

Liam Donovan: The posture of the congressional G.O.P. reflects where their constituents are — instinctually wary of protracted involvement in the Middle East, uncertain as to exactly what our current objectives are in Iran and relieved by the cease-fire to the extent they are following closely. They’re eager to give this president the benefit of the doubt, and his willingness to speak out against previous misadventures gives him additional credibility in the near term even as it has confounded expectations.

Guida: So you think that the surveys showing a significant majority of Republicans are with the president on Iran is guiding most G.O.P. politicians in Washington?

Donovan: I don’t think congressional Republicans need to look at polls to tell them what they’ve lived through over the past decade: This president has a profound connection with his (and their) voters, and there has yet to be an example of public opposition to the president paying electoral dividends. In the Trump era, you’ve ended up with a model of representation who acts more like a delegate than a trustee — a proxy, not someone applying judgment.

Guida: Yet the Republican Party is, well, a political party. Do you think that “profound connection” to an individual is healthy for the full range of what a party should be?

Donovan: You have to remember that we got here precisely because the legacy G.O.P. was facially strong, winning enough elections for the establishment to maintain power, but rotting underneath in ways few could perceive.

Read the full conversation here.

My latest, on a new approach to influence, lobbying, advocacy, and political strategy in Washington.

For me, it’s a paradigm shift. An evolved thesis of how to win in Washington.
After 20 years at the intersection of politics, policy, and media—the last 15 of them lobbying Congress and the Administration—I’ve come to a few conclusions about the state of the trade:

Read the full piece here.

I sat down with Ben Jacobs for a POLITICO Magazine interview on the Senate leadership battle, the looming influence of Trump, and what the landscape might look like in the post-McConnell era.

The future of Donald Trump’s second term in office will be shaped inside a closed room in the United States Senate on Wednesday. There, on a secret ballot, Republican senators will choose Mitch McConnell’s replacement and begin a new era for the Senate GOP.

In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Liam Donovan, a former GOP political operative and lobbyist who’s a close observer of Capitol Hill, laid out the political landmines facing the candidates to be the next Senate majority leader and the sway that Trump holds — or doesn’t hold — in the contest.

There are three contenders: John Thune of South Dakota, the current Republican whip; John Cornyn of Texas, his predecessor as Republican whip; and Rick Scott of Florida, a longtime McConnell critic who is running as an outsider.

The MAGA crowd has rallied behind Scott, but Trump himself has shied away from an endorsement. Instead, Trump has issued demands on Truth Social for candidates to allow him to make recess appointments to fill vacancies, to which the leadership candidates quickly responded with varying degrees of support.

It’s a reminder that regardless of who wins, there will be some break with McConnell.

“I do think there is enough desire to change how the chamber operates that you have to indulge some of the demands,” Donovan said, “both from the rank and file, but also some of the things that the president is talking about.”

Read the full Q&A here.