Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Represent 300 US Cities Seeking Climate Damages

More than 300 US local governments hired lobbying firms that simultaneously represent fossil fuel companies accused of worsening the climate crisis, according to a new analysis of federal disclosure documents. The research by F Minus and Make Polluters Pay reviewed congressional lobbying records for the first quarter of 2026, exposing what critics call a glaring conflict of interest at the heart of climate action efforts. The same lobbyists working to secure climate mitigation funding for cities are also representing ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, entities that actively oppose legislation to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for historic emissions.

The analysis found that another 568 local governments hired fossil fuel lobbyists to work on non-climate related issues during that time, some of which included climate-adjacent matters like healthcare and home insurance. James Browning, founder and executive director of F Minus, said local governments hiring these firms to lobby for climate mitigation, disaster relief, and wildlife conservation likely do not know the same firms represent clients pushing to further dependence on fossil fuels. “They are locked into these relationships with big firms and may also not know they are the ones blocking climate efforts,” Browning explained.

One Firm Serves Two Masters

The research identified dozens of lobbying firms working on both sides of climate action, with Greenberg Traurig emerging as the starkest example. The US multinational law firm lobbied for three fossil fuel entities – the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, and the Western States Petroleum Association in California – all of which have opposed state-level legislation aimed at holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for their historic climate-warming emissions. At the same time, Miami-Dade County in Florida hired the firm to lobby for shoreline protection and Everglades restoration.

“That’s a glaring conflict,” Browning said.

Westchester County and the city of Rochester, both in New York, also hired Greenberg Traurig despite the fact that these local governments could lose mitigation money if fossil fuel clients of the firm succeed in invalidating New York’s climate superfund legislation. Browning characterized the firm’s approach as cynical, noting that between congressional and state lobbying operations, the firm works for all opponents of superfund bills and biggest funders of climate denialism. The mayor of Miami-Dade County did not respond to a request for comment about the perceived conflict of interest, and Westchester County’s executive also declined to comment.

Climate Superfund Laws Face Industry Pushback

New York and Vermont passed climate superfund legislation in 2024, creating funding mechanisms to support climate mitigation costs using revenue from companies responsible for historic emissions. Another 13 states considered similar laws this year, establishing a pot of mitigation money funded by polluters rather than taxpayers. Cassidy DiPaola of the Make Polluters Pay campaign said member groups watched lawmakers who sounded supportive in meetings later vote against the bills, a pattern organizers in New Jersey traced to an unprecedented presence of industry lobbyists at the capitol.

In New Jersey, more than 100 business groups opposed the superfund bill even though public testimony ran in favor overall. DiPaola described a chamber where industry lobbying visibly outweighed popular support for holding fossil fuel companies accountable. The conflict of interest extends beyond state capitols to congressional lobbying, where firms representing both cities and fossil fuel giants shape federal policy on climate funding, disaster relief, and environmental protection.

Justice Department Investigates Alleged Hacking Campaign

A separate but related controversy has emerged involving alleged hacking of climate activists. A yearslong US Justice Department investigation of a global hacking campaign that targeted prominent American climate activists took a turn in a London court this week amid allegations that the hacking was ordered by a lobbying firm working for ExxonMobil. Both the lobbying firm and ExxonMobil have denied any awareness of or involvement with alleged hacking.

The hacking was allegedly commissioned by a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm working on behalf of one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies based in Texas that wanted to discredit groups and individuals involved in climate litigation, according to a lawyer representing the US government. The Justice Department does not name either company in court documents. As part of its probe, the US government is trying to extradite an Israeli private investigator named Amit Forlit from the United Kingdom for allegedly orchestrating the hacking campaign.

Lobbying Firm Named in Court Filing

A lawyer for Forlit claimed in a court filing that the hacking operation her client is accused of leading was allegedly commissioned by DCI Group, a lobbying firm representing ExxonMobil. Forlit has previously denied ordering or paying for hacking. According to a source familiar with the US probe who was not authorized to speak publicly, the government has investigated DCI’s possible role in the hacking. Reuters and The Wall Street Journal previously reported that the US government has investigated DCI.

DCI lobbied for ExxonMobil for about a decade, according to federal lobbying records. Craig Stevens, a partner at DCI, said in an email that no one at the firm has been questioned by the US government as part of the hacking investigation, calling allegations of the firm’s involvement with hacking supposedly occurring nearly a decade ago false and unsubstantiated. DCI and ExxonMobil declined to comment on the allegations made in the London hearing, referring inquiries back to statements they had provided earlier. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Cities Caught in the Middle

The dual representation of cities seeking climate recovery funds and fossil fuel companies opposing accountability measures raises fundamental questions about loyalty and effectiveness. Local governments pay lobbying firms to advocate for their interests in securing federal disaster relief, environmental restoration funding, and support for climate mitigation projects. Meanwhile, those same firms work to advance the interests of fossil fuel clients seeking to block legislation that would require companies to pay for climate damages their products caused. The financial incentives create a structural conflict that may undermine cities’ ability to secure the resources they need to protect residents from worsening climate impacts.

Researchers argue that transparency alone does not solve the problem when local governments lack the resources or expertise to vet their lobbying firms’ full client lists. Cities often hire established firms based on their access and influence in Washington, unaware that the same connections serve clients with directly opposing interests. As climate superfund legislation spreads to more states and the federal government considers similar approaches, the role of lobbying firms working both sides of the issue will likely face increased scrutiny from advocacy groups, journalists, and lawmakers concerned about conflicts of interest in climate policy.