logo
Villaraigosa, despite climate credentials, pivots toward oil industry in run for governor

Villaraigosa, despite climate credentials, pivots toward oil industry in run for governor

As California positions itself as a leader on climate change, former Los Angeles mayor and gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa is pivoting away from his own track record as an environmental champion to defend the state's struggling oil industry.
Villaraigosa's work to expand mass transit, plant trees and reduce carbon emissions made him a favorite of the environmental movement, but the former state Assembly speaker also accepted more than $1 million in campaign contributions and other financial support from oil companies and other donors tied to the industry over more than three decades in public life, according to city and state fundraising disclosures reviewed by The Times.
Since entering the race last year to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, Villaraigosa has accepted more than $176,000 from donors with ties to the oil industry, including from a company that operates oil fields in the San Joaquin Valley and in Los Angeles County, the disclosures show.
The clash between Villaraigosa's environmentalist credentials and oil-industry ties surfaced in the governor's race after Valero announced in late April that its Bay Area refinery would close next year, not long after Phillips 66 said its Wilmington refinery would close in 2025.
Villaraigosa is now warning that California drivers could see gas prices soar, blasting as 'absurd' policies that he said could have led to the refinery closures.
'I'm not fighting for refineries,' Villaraigosa said in an interview. 'I'm fighting for the people who pay for gas in this state.'
The refineries are a sore spot for Newsom and for California Democrats, pitting their environmental goals against concerns about the rising cost of living and two of the state's most powerful interest groups — organized labor and environmentalists — against each other.
Villaraigosa said Democrats are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in their approach to fighting climate change.
He said he hoped no more refineries would close until the state hits more electrification milestones, including building more transmission lines, green-energy storage systems and charging stations for electric cars. The only way for the state to reach 'net zero' emissions, he said, is an 'all-of-the-above' approach that includes solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear power and oil and gas.
'The notion that we're not going to do that is poppycock,' Villaraigosa said.
Villaraigosa's vocal support for the oil industry has upset some environmental groups that saw him as a longtime ally.
'I'm honestly shocked at just how bad it is,' said RL Miller, the president of Climate Hawks Vote and the chair of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus, of the contributions Villaraigosa has accepted since entering the race in July.
Miller said Villaraigosa signed a pledge during his unsuccessful run for governor in 2018 not to accept campaign contributions from oil companies and 'named executives' at fossil-fuel entities. She said he took the pledge shortly after accepting the maximum allowable contributions from several oil donors in 2017.
Miller said that more than $100,000 in donations that Villaraigosa has accepted in this gubernatorial cycle were clear violations of the pledge.
That included contributions from the state's largest oil and gas producer, California Resources Corp. and its subsidiaries, as well as the founder of Rocky Mountain Resources, a leader of the oil company Berry Corp., and Excalibur Well Services.
'This is bear-hugging the oil industry,' she said.
Environmental activists view the pledge as binding for future campaigns. Villaraigosa said he has not signed it for this campaign.
The economy is dramatically different than it was in 2018, Villaraigosa said, and working-class Americans are being hammered, which he said was a major factor in recent Democratic losses.
'We're losing working people, particularly working people who don't have a college education,' he said. 'Why are we losing them? The cost of living, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of groceries.'
Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said such statements are consistent with Villaraigosa's messaging in recent years.
'Villaraigosa is squarely in the moderate lane in the governor's race. That doomed him in 2018, when voters wanted to counterbalance President Trump and Villaraigosa was outflanked by Newsom,' Kousser said. 'But today, even some Democrats may want to counterbalance the direction that they see Sacramento taking, especially when it comes to cost-of-living issues and the price of gas.'
He added that the fossil-fuel donations may not be the basis for Villaraigosa's apparent embrace of oil and gas priorities.
'When a politician takes campaign contributions from an industry and also takes positions that favor it, that raises the possibility of corruption, of money influencing votes,' Kousser said. 'But it is also possible that it was the politician's own approach to an issue that attracted the contributions, that their votes attracted money but were not in any way corrupted by it. That may be the case here, where Villaraigosa has held fairly consistent positions on this issue and consistently attracted support from an industry because of those positions.'
Other Democrats in the 2026 governor's race, including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former state Controller Betty Yee and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, have signed the pledge not to accept contributions from oil industry interests, Miller said.
Former California Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and businessman Stephen Cloobeck have not. (Cloobeck has never run for office before and has not been asked to sign.)
Other gubernatorial candidates have also accepted fossil-fuel contributions, although in smaller numbers than Villaraigosa, state and federal filings show.
Becerra accepted contributions from Chevron and California Resources Corp., formerly Occidental Petroleum, while running for attorney general. Atkins took donations from Chevron, Occidental and a trade group for oil companies while running for state Assembly and state Senate. And while running for lieutenant governor, Kounalakis took contributions from executives at oil and mining companies.
Campaign representatives for the two main Republican candidates in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, said they welcomed oil-industry donations.
Villaraigosa is a fierce defender of his environmental record dating back to his first years as an elected official in the California Assembly.
As mayor of Los Angeles from 2005 to 2013, Villaraigosa set new goals to reduce emissions at the Port of Los Angeles, end the use of coal-burning power plants and shift the city's energy generation toward solar, wind and geothermal sources.
The child of a woman who relied on Metro buses, he also branded himself the 'transportation mayor.' Villaraigosa was a vocal champion for the 2008 sales tax increase that provided the first funding for the extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway to the Westside.
But, he said, Democrats in 2025 have to be realistic that the refinery closures and their goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could disproportionately affect low-income residents who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Villaraigosa's comments underscore a broader divide among Democrats about how to fight climate change without making California even more expensive, or driving out more high-paying jobs that don't require a college education.
Lorena Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker who became the leader of the California Labor Federation in 2022, said that while climate change is a real threat, so is shutting down refineries.
'That's a threat to those workers' jobs and lives, and it's also a threat to the price of gas,' Gonzalez said.
California is not currently positioned to end its reliance on fossil fuels, she said. If the state reduces its refining capacity, she said, it will have to rely on exports from nations that have less environmental and labor safeguards.
'Anyone running for governor has to acknowledge that,' Gonzalez said.
Villaraigosa said that while the loss of union jobs at Valero's Bay Area refinery worried him, his primary concern was over the cost of gasoline and household budgets.
His comments come as California prepares to square off yet again against the Trump administration over its environmental policies.
The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to revoke a federal waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle emission standards, including a rule that would have ultimately banned the sale of new gas-fueled cars in 2035. Villaraigosa denounced the vote, but said that efforts to fight climate change can't come at the expense of working-class Americans.
President Trump has also declared a national energy emergency, calling for increased fossil-fuel production, eliminating environmental reviews and the fast-tracking of projects in potentially sensitive ecosystems and habitats. The Trump administration is also targeting California's environmental standards.
Villaraigosa, an Eastside native, started his career as a labor organizer and rose to speaker of the state Assembly before becoming the mayor of Los Angeles. Now 72, Villaraigosa has not held elected office for more than a decade; he finished a distant third in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.
Over the years, donors affiliated with the fossil-fuel industry have contributed more than $1 million to Villaraigosa's political campaigns and his nonprofit causes, including an after-school program, the city's sports and entertainment commission and an effort to reduce violence by providing programming at city parks during summer nights, according to city and state disclosures.
More than half of the contributions and support for Villaraigosa's pet causes, over $582,000, came during his years at Los Angeles City Hall as a council member and mayor.
In 2008, billionaire oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens donated $150,000 to a city proposition backed by Villaraigosa that levied a new tax on phone and internet use.
Pickens made the donation as his company was vying for business at the port of Los Angeles, which is overseen by mayoral appointees and was seeking to reduce emissions by replacing diesel-powered trucks with vehicles fueled by liquid natural gas.
The rest of the contributions and other financial support flowed to Villaraigosa's campaign accounts and affiliated committees while he served in the Assembly and during his two gubernatorial runs. These figures do not include donations to independent expenditure committees, since candidates cannot legally be involved in those efforts.
Villaraigosa said that while such voters don't subscribe to Republicans' 'drill, baby, drill' ethos, he slammed the Democratic Party's focus on such matters and Trump instead of kitchen-table issues.
'The cost of everything we're doing is on the backs of the people who work the hardest and who make the least, and that's why so many of them — even when we were saying Trump is a threat to democracy — they were saying, yeah, but what about my gas prices, grocery prices, the cost of eggs?' he said.
Times staff writer Sandra McDonald in Sacramento contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries's cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on social platform X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' referring to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Pam Bondi Hit With Formal Demand to Answer Musk's Claim About Trump and Epstein
Pam Bondi Hit With Formal Demand to Answer Musk's Claim About Trump and Epstein

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Pam Bondi Hit With Formal Demand to Answer Musk's Claim About Trump and Epstein

House Democrats have urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to respond to a bombshell claim from Elon Musk that Donald Trump is named in the so-called 'Epstein files.' Reps. Stephen Lynch and Robert Garcia, who serve on key congressional oversight panels, sent a letter to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel obtained by Axios, demanding that they 'immediately clarify whether this allegation is true.' The lawmakers want Bondi and Patel to produce a detailed timeline of the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files and to explain why there have been no new disclosures since February, according to the letter. Trump 'is in the Epstein files,' billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk wrote in a post on X Thursday, alleging that 'that is the real reason they have not been made public.' Musk signed the post off by writing: 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk added in a follow-up post: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' He was referring to files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges. Officials in the first Trump administration determined that Epstein's death was a suicide, but conspiracy theories that he was killed to shield high-profile individuals including Trump, Britain's Prince Andrew, and former President Bill Clinton have proliferated nonetheless. The Trump administration in February declassified and released files related to Epstein, but they were highly redacted and did not offer major revelations. The FBI hasn't indicated when more files will be released. Lynch and Garcia want answers about who was involved in the review and redaction process. The Daily Beast has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' the lawmakers wrote in a three-page letter. 'Musk, one of the President's closest and most influential advisors, alleges that the President may be described in additional files related to this investigation. This allegation implies that the President may be involved in determining which files should be released and whether files will be withheld from the public if he personally chooses to withhold them,' the House Democrats said. Giving a June 20 deadline, the House Democrats asked Bondi and Patel to provide a timeline timeline for the declassification and public release of all remaining files; to describe why the DOJ hasn't released additional files since February; to describe Trump's role in reviewing documents pertaining to the investigation and prosecutions of convicted sex offenders Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as his role in determining DOJ's ability to declassify and make public these documents. They also demanded Bondi and Patel provide a list of all personnel whose approval is required to facilitate the declassification and public release of the documents, and to explain why the previously released files 'contained significant redactions.' In a statement to Axios, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the letter as 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' 'These are the same left-wing lunatics who neglected their oversight duties regarding the Biden administration's lawless actions and concocted hoax after hoax on President Trump during his first term. No one takes them or their petty letters seriously,' said Fields. Musk pushed the explosive claim amid an epic public feud with the president, which centers on the Trump-backed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' Musk has criticized the spending package, describing it as fiscally reckless and a 'disgusting abomination.' He's said the bill would undermine his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by adding trillions to the U.S. budget deficit. But Trump claimed Thursday that Musk was really upset about the effect the bill will have on his electric vehicle company, Tesla. In their rift Thursday, Musk also suggested Trump be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, and asked his 220 million followers in a poll on X whether he should create ' a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' Trump has said he's 'very disappointed' in Musk and suggested he has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Reports that pair could be set to make amends as soon as Friday with a Trump team-scheduled call with Musk to broker peace were quickly rebuffed by the president, who said Musk had 'lost his mind' and had no plans to talk to him. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it does not include the policies he wanted.'

Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules
Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules

The Trump administration on Friday took a step to undermine Biden-era rules that tightened fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department published an interpretive rule that says the Biden administration improperly considered electric vehicles as a way to make vehicle fleets more efficient While this determination does not formally end the Biden-era rule, the Trump administration indicated that while the rulemaking process plays out, it may not enforce the Biden-era standards. 'Pending the rulemaking process for the establishment of replacement standards, [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to all existing … standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule,' it stated. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to push an electric vehicle 'mandate.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. 'The previous administration illegally used [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards as an electric vehicle mandate.' The Biden administration issued a rule requiring cars to be about 2 percent more fuel efficient each year while heavy duty pickup trucks and vans would have to be 10 percent more efficient each year from 2030 to 2032 and 8 percent more efficient in the years after. President Trump has long talked about getting rid of the Biden administration's efforts to promote electric vehicles. He has argued that these efforts harm consumers' freedom to choose what kinds of cars they want to drive and could lead to strife for autoworkers. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that shifting toward more electric vehicles would mitigate air pollution and climate change — and put the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market. While Trump has long lamented the previous administration's electric vehicle policy, the release of the administration's determination comes just one day after an explosive feud emerged between the president and Tesla mogul Elon Musk. The Transportation Department rules came alongside a separate, more stringent regulation for vehicle tailpipe emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in practice has a greater effect on the vehicle market's fuel efficiency and is not impacted by the Trump administration's latest maneuver. However, the department's fuel economy rules would act as a backstop if the EPA rule was to be overturned. Republicans are attempting to eliminate that rule through their 'big, beautiful bill.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store