Democrats Court Oil, Turning Chevron Critiques Into Fuel

Democrats embrace – From California’s governor’s race to oil-heavy regions like rural south Texas and Alaska, Democrats are increasingly talking about energy in a different tone—less about eliminating fossil fuels and more about managing the country’s dependence. A standout momen

When Xavier Becerra stepped onto the stage at the League of California Cities conference last month, the question came loaded: why accept a donation from Chevron, the Southern California oil giant that critics say should be off limits.

Becerra, a former state attorney general and the frontrunner in the governor’s race, answered without apology. He pointed to the people who work in the industry—engineers and construction workers—then pressed the everyday reality of fuel in people’s lives.

“Chevron employs a lot of very hard-working people, talented folks — engineers, construction workers. That’s the problem with politics: They’re not the bad guy. Does everybody here drive an electric vehicle?” he said. “You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people in the state of California need Chevron.”.

“If Chevron wants to give me a check, that’s their prerogative,” he added.

The response wasn’t just a defense. It set up a fight that Democrats are now having inside their own tent—over whether the party can return to power without treating oil and gas as an enemy in every conversation.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire Democratic activist and Becerra’s most serious challenger, moved fast. He featured the clip in three different attack ads, omitting much of Becerra’s answer so the line “I need Chevron” would land as if Becerra was saying he needed the company’s money.

One ad’s narrator frames the story as betrayal, declaring, “Xavier Becerra is part of a broken system that delivers for them, not you.”

Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. and he doesn’t appear eager to repeat the exchange. But the speed with which Steyer turned a defensive argument about workers and energy reliance into a political weapon has made the broader shift unmistakable: Democrats are wrestling with whether a more conciliatory approach to oil and gas is the price of building a comeback.

That debate is playing out beyond California. In many places, Democratic candidates are sounding more willing to acknowledge the country’s dependence on fossil fuels—while trying to keep clean energy on the same page.

“It is unrealistic for policymakers to only talk about oil and gas in a negative light. because people are deeply reliant on oil and gas in their day-to-day lives. ” said Emily Becker. who works for the climate and energy program at Third Way. a center-left think tank. “We can’t tell people that every time you gas up your car, you’re doing something wrong.”.

The shift contrasts with how Democrats talked about energy in the years leading into President Donald Trump’s first election and into the Biden administration. The emphasis was overwhelmingly on battling climate change. and activist groups pushing for a “Green New Deal” helped shape a competitive push among presidential candidates to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels.

Even when American oil production reached record highs under Biden’s administration, the president declined to boast about it.

Now, the message has begun to change—and it has tracked two major forces: the clean energy industry’s growing viability, and a decision by Democrats to make fighting climate change less central to their message.

Still, there’s disagreement about how far the party should go. Tre Easton, a vice president at the moderate Searchlight Institute, said Democrats need to push further toward treating climate policy as broader energy policy.

“There’s still sort of this consensus from the past 10 years where oil and gas companies are persona non grata for most Democrats in D.C. ” Easton said. “That’s an untenable situation. If that’s the entirety of the conversation, Republicans are going to dictate the terms. And that’s not good for anybody.”.

In south Texas, where oil is not a background issue but a livelihood, Democrats are already acting like energy has to be discussed in human terms—not as a moral verdict.

Bobby Pulido. a former Tejano music star running as a Democrat in a rural district in south Texas. has been unapologetically positive about oil and gas production. In a phone interview. he pointed to employment realities: more than 600. 000 Texans work in oil and gas. and the industry makes up about 13% of the state’s gross domestic product.

“In many of the counties, some of the best-paying jobs are in oil and gas,” he said.

He also described what he says is happening to workers when they’re drawn into political fear. Pulido said oil company owners and executives tell employees the Democratic threat is existential—warning them that “the other ones want to take your job,” so they should vote Republican.

“It’s just not a winning strategy if voters think you want to take away their job,” Pulido continued.

Pulido emphasized he supports clean energy as well. He said he wants to secure better protections for oil industry workers in the region, many of whom are contractors and lack severance protections if they are laid off when oil prices drop.

State Rep. James Talarico, in a recent joint podcast appearance with Pulido, gave the industry a similarly friendly framing. “I owe everything to this industry,” Talarico said, describing how taxes on the industry helped fund schools in the state.

“The idea that politicians in Washington think they can eliminate this industry is something we had to fight against, something we have to fight against in our own party,” he said.

But Talarico also represents the tension inside the Democratic shift: he once sounded more like a Biden-era Democrat. He backed legislation requiring Texas to cut its carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 as a state representative. a position Republicans have already signaled they plan to attack as insufficiently supportive of the industry.

The same story echoes elsewhere. Former Rep. Mary Peltola has been supportive of oil and gas exploration in Alaska, adopting positions similar to those of GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, the man she is aiming to oust. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has also shrugged off criticism from progressives aimed at rolling back a climate law seen as aggressively cracking down on fossil fuels.

Even some mainstream environmental groups have accepted the tonal shift, as long as Democrats keep contrasting themselves with Trump’s posture toward clean energy. They argue that under Trump, the administration has made it as difficult as possible to get new clean energy projects off the ground.

“There’s going to be a massive energy buildout to meet demand from data centers one way or the other. and the question is are you going to give wind. solar and batteries a fair shot to win that buildout or are you not?” said Jesse Lee. a senior adviser at Climate Power. “There’s only one party trying to ban new energy sources in this country right now, and the Republicans.”.

Still, the question hanging over all of this is whether Democratic voters—especially the party’s most climate-focused base—will accept a warmer relationship with the oil and gas industry.

In California, Steyer’s attacks on Becerra’s ties to big oil are among the most effective anti-Becerra messaging, according to Democratic operatives who have seen polling on the race. California environmental groups have lined up behind Steyer.

Matt Abularach-Macias. the political director of California Environmental Voters. responded to Becerra’s comments last month by saying. “Becerra is wrong. Big Oil is absolutely the bad guy.” He added. “Big Oil knew their products would cause devastating impacts to our health. economic and physical safety decades ago. and they decided to lie about it and continue their destructive. deadly business practices.”.

The money fueling the fight is substantial. Chevron and another major oil company, the California Resources Corporation, have both donated $500,000 to an independent expenditure campaign backing Becerra. Steyer has used that cash to justify calling Becerra “big oil Becerra” and put out a digital ad mocking the donations.

Becerra, for his part, has a record of battling the fossil fuel industry. When he was asked about his climate change bona fides at the conference, he said somewhat flippantly, “Google ‘AG Becerra lawsuits against fossil fuel industry,’” and then moved on.

But the industry seems to be embracing him mostly as an alternative to the climate-focused Steyer, said one California Democrat who has worked with the industry but requested anonymity to speak frankly about the contested race.

If Steyer’s attacks work—especially if the race stays tight enough that both men could advance to the general election in California, where a verdict might not be immediately forthcoming—it could shape how Democratic leaders talk about energy long after California’s ballots are counted.

Becker, though, doesn’t see a return to the old posture. “The ground has shifted, and I think you’re going to see something a lot more reflective of what the American people actually want,” she said.

Democrats Xavier Becerra Tom Steyer Chevron League of California Cities energy policy oil and gas clean energy climate change Third Way Searchlight Institute south Texas Bobby Pulido James Talarico Mary Peltola Kathy Hochul Climate Power data centers California Environmental Voters