A landfall-free U.S. hurricane season is being used by both parties to advance competing narratives on climate risk, federal spending, and regulatory costs.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Atlantic hurricane season ended Nov. 30 with an outcome that has rapidly become a political flashpoint: for the first time since 2015, no hurricanes made landfall in the United States. While the meteorological facts are uncontested, according to a report by Newsmax, the interpretation of those facts has been aggressively contested in Washington, where storms have become a recurring symbol in the broader fight over climate policy.
According to reporting by ABC News, citing the National Hurricane Center, the 2025 season produced 13 named storms, including five hurricanes, four of them major. Despite that activity, none made U.S. landfall. The outlet described the season as “consequential” even without domestic hurricane strikes, noting that Tropical Storm Chantal was the only system to reach the United States, bringing heavy rain and flooding to North Carolina in July.
That landfall-free result quickly moved from a weather recap into political messaging because hurricanes have featured prominently in Democratic climate rhetoric following destructive seasons. Storms have repeatedly been cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying extreme weather and that expansive federal intervention is required.
During Hurricane Helene in October 2024, then-President Joe Biden leaned heavily on climate language in public remarks. As reported by the Associated Press, Biden said, “Storms are getting stronger and stronger,” and later added at a briefing in Raleigh, “Nobody can deny the impact of the climate crisis anymore. At least I hope they don’t. They must be brain-dead if they do. Scientists report that with warming oceans powering more intense rains, storms like Helene are getting stronger and stronger.”
Democrats used Helene and other storms to push climate policy back toward the center of the 2024 campaign after it initially received limited attention in debates. The Associated Press described the storm’s “link to climate change” as a focal point for Democratic leaders and highlighted how it featured in the vice presidential debate, where both candidates supported a strong federal response but diverged on policy implications.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said of Helene, “There’s no doubt this thing roared onto the scene faster and stronger than anything we’ve seen.”
Storms were also used as campaign leverage outside the White House. After Helene, Democrats in Florida framed hurricane vulnerability as a political liability for Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. According to E&E News, then-Democratic Senate candidate Debbie Mucarsel-Powell said, “Rick Scott has repeatedly left Florida families vulnerable to hurricanes and the worsening effects of climate change during his 14 years of failed leadership,” adding that Florida deserved leadership that would not deny climate change in the face of extreme weather.
Republicans responded that Democrats were using natural disasters to advance policies voters had not endorsed and that climate rhetoric often blurred the line between disaster relief and ideological goals. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis became a leading example of that pushback in 2024. PolitiFact summarized his position by reporting that DeSantis dismissed claims linking storms to climate change, saying “there’s nothing new under the sun.”
The 2025 season’s lack of U.S. hurricane landfalls has now been pulled directly into that same argument. Conservative lawmakers and commentators argue that Democrats spotlight storms when they support aggressive climate policy but downplay seasons when domestic impacts do not match earlier warnings. Democrats and climate-aligned groups counter that landfall depends heavily on storm tracks and timing, and they point to storm intensity and damage outside the United States as evidence that broader risks remain.
International developments have also shaped the debate. Coverage by the Associated Press of the COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil, reported that the final decision text did not include the words “fossil fuels,” quoting Panama negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez as saying, “A climate decision that cannot even say ‘fossil fuels’ is not neutrality, it is complicity.”
Reuters reported that a Brazil-issued draft text contained no reference to fossil fuels after earlier language was dropped and that the European Union rejected the draft as “too weak.” COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago urged unity, saying, “This cannot be an agenda that divides us.”
The absence of explicit fossil-fuel language quickly became fodder in U.S. partisan media. A RedState article published under The Heartland Institute banner framed the summit as a defeat for what it called climate alarmism.
Domestically, the climate debate has increasingly centered on costs and feasibility. President Donald Trump’s second-term coalition has emphasized cost-of-living concerns, arguing that Democratic climate programs translate into higher energy and vehicle prices through regulation and mandates.
That critique has been reinforced by policy developments. Reuters reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering a two-year delay in enforcing a Biden-era vehicle pollution rule covering model years 2027 through 2032. Automakers told regulators the rule was “unachievable” without sharp increases in electric-vehicle market share and warned it would add “hundreds of dollars” to the cost of internal combustion vehicles.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said automakers warned the agency the requirements were causing adverse impacts, adding that easing the rule would have “a positive impact on the auto industry, on auto jobs, and bringing down the cost of vehicles and increasing consumer choice.”
The same cost-versus-risk framing has shaped debate over federal spending. The Treasury Department has described the Inflation Reduction Act as “the largest investment in reducing carbon pollution in U.S. history,” while pitching it as an economic growth measure.
Republicans have attacked parts of the law as wasteful, even as some GOP lawmakers have urged preserving certain tax credits tied to projects in their districts. Reuters reported that a group of House Republicans asked the Ways and Means Committee to pursue a “targeted” approach to repealing clean-energy credits to avoid disrupting projects and raising prices, warning against destabilizing incentives enacted over a 10-year period.
Another flashpoint has been the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, often referred to as the “green bank.” Republicans have repeatedly criticized the program as opaque and unaccountable. House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans labeled it the “Biden Admin’s $27 Billion Green Slush Fund” while pressing the EPA for oversight.
An Associated Press report detailed how the Trump administration’s EPA froze nearly $7 billion in grant funds tied to the program and outlined related litigation. Zeldin cited an undercover video of a former EPA employee saying the agency was throwing “gold bars off the Titanic,” language he has used to accuse recipients of waste and potential misconduct, while Democrats have described the investigation as a sham.
Even storm forecasting mechanics entered the political debate. ABC News quoted Marshall Shepherd, director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia and a former president of the American Meteorological Society, saying the U.S. outcome was “a function of the steering patterns and synoptic weather patterns of the year.”
Democrats cite that explanation to argue that landfall statistics do not undermine broader climate risk, while Republicans cite the same variability to argue that storm outcomes are too inconsistent to justify sweeping economic policy.
In 2024, when storms hit, Democrats used those moments to elevate climate policy and tie hurricane vulnerability to Republican rivals, as E&E News documented. In 2025, conservatives argue that the quieter domestic outcome is being treated as a footnote rather than a headline.
With storms missing the U.S. mainland and international negotiations ending without the explicit language many advocates sought, both parties are now using the same set of facts to argue for opposite policy conclusions. The next test will not come from the weather map, but from legislative votes that determine whether climate policy continues to be framed as a crisis or is increasingly judged through the lens of affordability, oversight, and consumer impact.
Original article
Comments