Environmental Polling Roundup – May 23, 2025
Headlines
Data for Progress – Voters widely oppose the cuts that have been included in the reconciliation bill, including cuts to clean energy, and say that high-income households should be paying more in taxes [Release, Crosstabs]
Navigator – Even without hearing about specific cuts, voters oppose the GOP tax plan by a wide margin after seeing messaging about how much it favors the wealthy [Release, Deck, Topline]
The Economist + YouGov – Americans continue to prefer expanding the EPA and NWS over cutting them [Topline, Crosstabs]
Data for Progress – Voters have positive attitudes about a wide range of clean energy technologies; while voters support expanding domestic production of “critical minerals” after learning basic information about the topic, environmental impacts are their top concern about critical mineral mining [Release, Report, Crosstabs]
Key Takeaways
There is very little public appetite for the kinds of cuts to clean energy and environmental protections that are in the reconciliation bill, even within the Republican base. Data for Progress finds that only around one in five voters, including less than half of Republicans, want to reduce federal funding for clean energy tax credits. Additionally, The Economist and YouGov find that Americans would rather increase than decrease funding for the EPA. Even among Trump’s base of self-identified Republicans, less than half say that the EPA should be cut.
These findings show that the notion that spending on clean energy or environmental protection is wasteful simply doesn’t have traction among the general public, as voters generally see the budget cuts in the reconciliation bill as either unnecessary or actively harmful.
Messaging against budget cuts will be more effective if it includes the other side of the equation: how budget cuts are paying for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations. Data for Progress finds that voters believe that wealthier households (especially those making more than $1 million per year) should be paying more in taxes rather than less. Other recent Data for Progress polling found that voters believe that corporations also pay too little in taxes as is.
And Navigator finds that, while voters are initially split on Republicans’ proposed tax cuts, they shift to opposing the tax cuts by a nearly two-to-one margin after reading a simple statement that “the latest nonpartisan analysis says those tax cuts will mostly benefit people who are already rich.”
Good Data Points to Highlight
- [EPA] Only 22% of Americans say that the EPA should be cut or eliminated, while 35% say that it should be expanded and 30% say that its funding should be kept the same [The Economist + YouGov]
- [Reconciliation + Clean Energy] Only 21% of voters say that the government should cut federal funding for clean energy tax credits, while 33% say that we should increase funding for them and 35% say that we should keep funding at current levels [Data for Progress]
- [Clean Energy] 72% of voters have favorable attitudes about renewable energy like solar or wind, compared to just 18% who have unfavorable attitudes [Data for Progress]
- [Clean Energy] 69% of voters support the federal government taking a more active role to support the renewable energy industry [Data for Progress]
- [Clean Energy Infrastructure] 70% of voters would support building a new transmission line in their state to connect renewable energy power to the grid [Data for Progress]
- [Clean Energy Infrastructure] 66% of voters would support building a solar panel farm in their state [Data for Progress]
- [Clean Energy Infrastructure] 63% of voters would support building a wind turbine farm in their state [Data for Progress]
- [Non-Profits] By a 55%-36% margin, voters oppose legislation that would give the executive branch new authority to classify nonprofits as “terrorist supporting organizations” and strip them of their tax-exempt status [Data for Progress]
Full Roundup
Data for Progress – Voters widely oppose the cuts that have been included in the reconciliation bill, including cuts to clean energy, and say that high-income households should be paying more in taxes [Release, Crosstabs]
Voters accurately assume that Congressional Republicans are trying to cut clean energy tax credits. The majority of voters say that it’s at least “somewhat” likely that Congressional Republicans will cut clean energy tax credits as part of their budget plan, along with other government programs and services that the reconciliation bill is reducing:
- The National Institutes of Health (NIH) – 75% say that Congressional Republicans are “somewhat” or “very” likely to cut this
- Student loan assistance – 69%
- Federal rental assistance – 65%
- Clean energy tax credits – 64%
- The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – 64%
- Health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act – 63%
- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – 60%
- Medicaid – 59%
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – 57%
- Meals on Wheels – 57%
- Free or Reduced School Lunch – 54%
- Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – 54%
Voters would rather expand than reduce clean energy tax credits and other programs that are being cut in the reconciliation bill. For the clean energy tax credits and every other program that Data for Progress asked about that is facing cuts, more voters say that the government should increase than decrease federal funding:
- Meals on Wheels – 54% increase / 35% maintain / 5% cut
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – 53% increase / 34% maintain / 7% cut
- Free or Reduced School Lunch – 50% increase / 36% maintain / 7% cut
- Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – 48% increase / 36% maintain / 7% cut
- Medicaid – 47% increase / 37% maintain / 10% cut
- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – 44% increase / 37% maintain / 10% cut
- Health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act – 43% increase / 33% maintain / 14% cut
- The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – 41% increase / 36% maintain / 16% cuts
- The National Institutes of Health (NIH) – 39% increase / 36% maintain / 15% cut
- Federal rental assistance – 37% increase / 35% maintain / 16% cut
- Student loan assistance – 33% increase / 35% maintain / 24% cut
- Clean energy tax credits – 33% increase / 35% maintain / 21% cut
The idea of cutting clean energy tax credits is unpopular across the political spectrum. Only 6% of Democrats, 19% of independents, and 36% of Republicans say that the country should cut federal funding for clean energy tax credits.
Voters say that wealthier households should be paying more, not less, in taxes. Voters widely agree that households making $400,000+ per year should be paying more in taxes, with particularly broad agreement that households earning over one million dollars per year should be taxed more. Meanwhile, most voters say that households making $50,000 or less per year should be paying less in taxes.
Below are the percentages who say that households in different income brackets should be paying more, the same, or less in taxes:
- Households making more than $50 million – 67% pay more / 19% the same / 7% pay less
- Households making $1 million to $50 million – 67% pay more / 21% the same / 7% pay less
- Households making $400,000 to $1 million – 59% pay more / 26% the same / 8% pay less
- Households making $100,000 to $400,000 – 36% pay more / 43% the same / 13% pay less
- Households making $50,000 to $100,000 – 14% pay more / 49% the same / 31% pay less
- Households making $25,000 to $50,000 – 5% pay more / 32% the same / 58% pay less
- Households making less than $25,000 – 4% pay more / 20% the same / 71% pay less
These findings show how out of step congressional Republicans’ tax plan is with public opinion, as independent analyses show that the bill would disproportionately benefit wealthier Americans.
Navigator – Even without hearing about specific cuts, voters oppose the GOP tax plan by a wide margin after seeing messaging about how much it favors the wealthy [Release, Deck, Topline]
Voters are split on congressional Republicans’ budget plan and proposed tax cuts. Without seeing any specifics about what’s in it, voters lean against the budget plan that has been proposed by Republicans in Congress (36% support / 45% oppose).
When asked just about the “additional tax cuts” that are part of the Republican budget plan, voters are split (42% support / 39% oppose).
Voters oppose Republicans’ proposed tax cuts by a nearly two-to-one margin after hearing that they will mostly benefit the rich. While they start off split on Republicans’ proposed tax cuts (42% support / 39% oppose), voters shift to opposing the tax cuts by a 27-point margin (30% support / 57% oppose) after seeing a brief statement that “the latest nonpartisan analysis says those tax cuts will mostly benefit people who are already rich.”
This dramatic shift is indicative of how malleable voters are on the tax plan and also how resistant they are to tilting tax policy even more in favor of the rich, as voters believe that wealthy Americans aren’t paying their fair share of taxes as is.
The Economist + YouGov – Americans continue to prefer expanding the EPA and NWS over cutting them [Topline, Crosstabs]
Americans would much rather expand or maintain funding for federal agencies that deal with environmental issues than cut them. As has consistently been the case in public polling since the Trump administration began slashing federal programs, few Americans say that the Environmental Protection Agency or National Weather Service should be downsized. To the contrary, Americans are more likely to say that both the EPA and NWS should be expanded than to say that they should be cut:
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – 35% expanded / 30% kept the same / 22% reduced or eliminated
- National Weather Service (NWS) – 28% expanded / 48% kept the same / 12% reduced or eliminated
Even within Trump’s own base of self-identified Republicans, less than half say that the EPA should be cut and less than one-quarter say that the NWS should be cut:
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – 15% expanded / 32% kept the same / 41% reduced or eliminated
- National Weather Service (NWS) – 15% expanded / 55% kept the same / 21% reduced or eliminated
Data for Progress – Voters have positive attitudes about a wide range of clean energy technologies; while voters support expanding domestic production of “critical minerals” after learning basic information about the topic, environmental impacts are their top concern about critical mineral mining [Release, Report, Crosstabs]
Voters have positive attitudes about a wide range of climate-friendly technologies. Majorities say that they feel favorably about each of the low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources that Data for Progress asked about in their poll, including:
- Renewable energy (e.g., solar or wind) – 72% favorable / 18% unfavorable
- Hydropower – 70% favorable / 7% unfavorable
- Geothermal energy – 61% favorable / 11% unfavorable
- Nuclear energy – 60% favorable / 23% unfavorable
While voters tend to like all of these alternatives to fossil fuels, Data for Progress finds that voters also have overwhelmingly favorable opinions of natural gas (80% favorable / 9% unfavorable). Other research shows that the public’s positive feelings about natural gas stem at least in part from its branding as “natural,” as Americans feel less positively about it when it’s described using other terms such as “fracked” gas or “methane” gas.
Data for Progress finds that voters also have favorable impressions of other terms that relate to clean energy and decarbonization technologies, including battery storage (63% favorable / 17% unfavorable) and carbon removal and carbon capture technologies (62% favorable / 17% unfavorable).
Most voters support domestic critical mineral mining, with particularly robust support from Republicans. Around two-thirds of voters support the federal government taking a more active role in supporting mining for critical minerals like lithium and aluminum (67% support / 20% oppose).
This includes around three in five Democrats (59%), two-thirds of independents (68%), and three-quarters of Republicans (75%).
Voters also have favorable impressions of the term “critical minerals” (62% favorable / 11% unfavorable), though that terminology is frequently debated and there is significant disagreement over which minerals or metals should be designated as “critical.”
Large majorities across party lines say that it’s important for the U.S. to expand domestic critical mineral production after learning what the minerals are used for. Around four in five voters (81%) say that it’s important for the U.S. to expand domestic mineral production in the U.S. after seeing the following statement about them:
“Some minerals, including lithium, aluminum, and copper, are called ‘critical minerals’ since they’re frequently used in batteries, electronics, and other essential devices.”
Many voters also feel strongly about the issue after seeing this description of “critical minerals,” with 48% saying that it’s “very” important for the U.S. to expand domestic critical mineral production.
Again, while voters are generally aligned on the issue regardless of their partisanship, Republicans are the most eager to back domestic critical mineral production. Nearly nine in ten Republican voters (89%) say that it’s important for the U.S. to expand its critical mineral production after seeing the statement above, compared to 81% of independents and 73% of Democrats.
Environmental impacts top voters’ concerns about critical mineral mines in the U.S., while reducing reliance on imports is the most compelling benefit. When asked to choose their single biggest concern about having a critical mineral mine begin operation in the U.S., voters single out environmental impacts over other potential negative consequences:
- Environmental impacts (e.g., water contamination) – 24% say that this is their most important concern
- Public health impacts, including the health of miners – 15%
- Critical minerals being used for foreign products / Mining operations being owned by foreign companies – 12%
- Land clean up and use when a mining operation ends – 12%
- Lack of trust in safe disposal or storage of waste products – 9%
- Negative impacts to Tribal lands, communities, and sovereignty – 6%
- Not enough returns to taxpayers (e.g., via royalties and taxes from mining companies) – 4%
Environmental impacts rank as the top concern for Democrats and independents, and are also one of the most common concerns for Republican voters.
On the other side of the equation, when they’re asked to choose the most important benefit of critical mineral mining in the U.S., voters point to reduced reliance on other countries:
- Reducing reliance on foreign sources of critical minerals – 30% say that this is the most important benefit
- The U.S. would become better/more efficient at manufacturing new technologies (e.g., semiconductors) – 21%
- The creation of local mining and manufacturing jobs – 13%
- Stronger environmental laws than other countries – 7%
- Returns to taxpayers (e.g., via royalties and taxes from mining companies) – 7%
- Mining in the U.S. is safer due to stronger labor protections for mine workers in the U.S. – 6%
Related Resources
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 6th, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 23rd, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 27th, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.