President Trump’s efforts to dismantle parts of the Biden administration’s climate-policy framework have exposed just how much money and institutional power had become attached to it.

Renewable-energy companies, financial institutions, advocacy groups, labor organizations, and state governments are now fighting over subsidies, tax credits, regulations, and investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Whatever one thinks of President Trump’s policy reversals, the controversy raises a more fundamental question: who built and financed this sprawling climate-policy system in the first place?

Most people assume climate policy emerges through the normal democratic process. Scientists publish research, governments consult experts, legislators debate proposals, and elected representatives decide the direction of public policy. Yet across both Europe and the United States, a vast network of philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, advocacy groups, and financial institutions also plays an important role in shaping climate policy and public opinion.

One organization that has attracted increasing attention is the European Climate Foundation (ECF), established in 2008 and headquartered in The Hague. Although headquartered in Europe, many of the foundation’s largest financial supporters are major American philanthropic organizations, illustrating the increasingly transatlantic nature of climate advocacy.

Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok recently examined the foundation’s role in European climate policy, arguing that it has become one of Europe’s most influential climate-focused philanthropic organizations while remaining largely unknown outside specialist circles.

His investigation raises important questions about how modern climate advocacy is financed and organized.

According to publicly available information cited by Crok, the ECF received approximately €275 million in funding during 2023. Among the listed supporters are several major American philanthropic organizations, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, alongside a number of European charitable foundations.

Grant recipients include research organisations, environmental NGOs, legal advocacy groups, communications initiatives, and media projects. Crok notes that organizations such as Carbon Brief, the European Environment Bureau, and CAN Europe have received ECF support, while Carbon Brief publicly discloses such funding as part of its transparency policy.

Climate policy today extends far beyond climate science. Across both Europe and the United States, it increasingly influences industrial strategy, financial regulation, banking, agriculture, transport, housing, taxation, and long-term investment decisions. Governments now work alongside NGOs, philanthropic foundations, research institutes, financial institutions, and private-sector organizations in developing climate and energy policy.

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act alone originally included an estimated $369 billion in energy-security and climate-related programs, including grant funding and tax incentives, increasing the importance of understanding the organisations that help shape climate policy debates.

One example of this wider funding ecosystem is its growing connection with the international financial sector. Over the past decade, major American and international banks, asset managers and multinational corporations have become increasingly involved in developing climate-related financial frameworks.

In December 2015, the Financial Stability Board established the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally — see here.

The task force brings together representatives from many of the world’s largest financial institutions and corporations to develop climate-risk reporting standards. Over subsequent years, climate-related disclosure rapidly became embedded within investment management, Wall Street, banking regulation and corporate governance.

Critics, however, contend that they have also accelerated the financialisation of climate policy, embedding net-zero objectives within banking, investment and corporate decision-making.

When the world’s largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that, in my view, is not supported by robust empirical evidence, one can see there is another agenda going on behind the scenes. This climate agenda tries to convince the public to make sacrifices and to accept significant economic and social changes under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.”

Meanwhile, corporations, financial institutions and investment funds stand to benefit financially, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic policy systems under the banner of combatting man-made CO2-induced climate change.

Ultimately, critics argue that this agenda aligns with the objectives of U.N. Agenda 2030 while creating, or potentially creating, trillions of dollars in new financial opportunities for major banks and investment firms.

As a former science adviser at the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change, and one of more than 2,000 scientists and academics who have signed the Clintel World Climate Declaration, I believe this close relationship between climate policy and financial institutions deserves far greater public scrutiny.  The Clintel declaration argues that CO₂ is not the dominant driver of climate and that natural variability plays a much larger role than is commonly acknowledged.

The Rockefeller family’s support for climate initiatives has also attracted particular attention. How the Rockefeller banking dynasty became leading advocates of the global warning agenda is described in a report titled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in  December 2016.

An article published by the institute  states:

In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists… Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources …

Another important development has received surprisingly little public attention.

The developers of the next generation of official climate scenarios have concluded that the highest-emissions pathways, including RCP 8.5 and SSP5-8.5, are no longer considered plausible representations of likely future development. Because these scenarios influenced thousands of studies, policy recommendations and media reports, this shift has important implications. I examine the issue in detail in my earlier American Thinker article, “The Climate Scenario Behind A Decade of Alarmism Is No Longer Considered Plausible“

A broader question concerns the underlying assumptions built into today’s climate models. Is carbon dioxide truly the dominant driver of climate, as argued by the U.N. IPCC, and can current models isolate its influence with the degree of precision implied by modern attribution studies? Many scientists and researchers—including the more than 2,000 signatories of the Clintel World Climate Declaration — argue that CO₂ is not the dominant driver of climate and that natural variability plays a much larger role than is commonly acknowledged.

Supporters argue that funding of net-zero initiatives accelerates action on an urgent global challenge. Critics contend that concentrated philanthropic funding amplifies particular policy perspectives while making alternative viewpoints less visible within public debate.

Regardless of one’s view of climate science, organisations spending hundreds of millions of dollars and euros to influence public opinion and public policy deserve greater transparency and public scrutiny. Whether in Europe or the United States, citizens have a right to know who is shaping climate policy, how it is being funded, and whether competing scientific perspectives are receiving a fair hearing.

These issues are examined in greater detail in the 2026 edition of my book Climate CO₂ Hoax: How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement.

Its purpose is to distinguish genuine environmental concerns from claims that, in my view, are not supported by robust empirical evidence.

Mark Keenan is a former United Nations technical expert and an independent writer on science, technology, political economy and human freedom. He is the author of Climate CO2 Hoax, The AI Illusion, The Debt Machine, and Demonic Economics. His articles are available on Substack at markgerardkeenan.substack.com.

Mark Keenan | July 18, 2026

Source: Who Really Funds the Climate Agenda? – American Thinker

America’s Independence From Tyrannical English Governance Would Never Have Succeeded Without Dependence On God

America’s celebration of birth since 1776 was spectacular, our independence from mother England 250 years previous having been a painful and bloody one, to say the least. That separation, however, wasn’t one of merely exerting cleavage from an empire determined to rule over the colonies. That is, there has been a much more profound leverage than a revolutionary spirit at work in producing that schism than just the colonists’ desire to break free of overbearing bondage.

America’s founding fathers—that is, a majority of them—recognized the nature of the profound leverage they were allowed to apply in order to burst free from the most powerful military on the planet at the time. It was providential leverage that most of them acknowledged as the intervening force that birthed this nation.

George Washington said on a number of occasions following the War of Independence that he felt the hand of the Almighty on him. He said he was providentially prevented from being shot on several occasions. In one incident, there were four rifle ball holes in his general’s uniform, but none of the balls had entered his body.

John Adams repeatedly wrote that America was a nation under God’s hand, that America was a moral nation, and the Constitution would work for no other than a moral people. Even Jefferson acknowledged a greater power as having guided the founders and seen to it that the War of Independence was won because of a providential power.

So, the desire for independence from a tyrannical, overbearing English governance was important as those patriots waged the Revolutionary War. But, in the words of almost every founding father, according to extensive documents we have seen presented by experts on America’s founding, such as David Barton, it was dependence on God in Heaven they acknowledged as the true reason for America’s winning independence.

This dependence was steeped in adherence to the Word of God. The Judeo-Christian reference to America’s founding is that its founding principles were based, by and large, within Old and New Testament principles.

Although there is debate on who made the statement, French historian and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville is attributed as saying: “America is great because she is good; if America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

During the early times of the nation’s founding, America was indeed good in comparison to today’s America. Jesus Christ was the only good there was at the center of the founding principles. At this late date 250 years hence, however, we can but admit the truth that we have in many areas lost our way in comparison to those earlier times.

The entire world of earth’s inhabitants, for the most part, have strayed ever farther from Heaven’s governance. Independence is now a term that can be applied to the world pulling away from God’s desire that people come nearer to Him, not break away from Him. I believe that because of America’s founding fathers’ dependence on the principles found in God’s Holy Word, the nation could well call the date of July 4, 1776, Dependence Day. It was in large part a dependence upon Heaven above to secure the Revolutionary War victory and nationhood we enjoy today.

America, too, suffers from the independent spirit of anti-God behavior. It is actually the Antichrist Spirit that this country and all nations of the world suffer from as we dive more deeply into the end of the Age of Grace.

But vestiges of that early spirit of dependence upon the God of Heaven still linger in America during this evil day. Despite the world’s mainstream media’s constant railing against Americanism, and the leaderships of the world’s countries lying to their peoples about the ugly Americans, we see, through reports, that this nation that was once populated by a moral people can yet be sensed, even if during this time of liberty’s last gleaming.

American greatness left a World Cup traveler in tears as he admitted what initially caused him “fear to travel to the United States.”

In the weeks since the 2026 FIFA World Cup has been underway, communities across North America have embraced the prolific drinking of the Tartan Army, Norway’s Viking row, and the myriad guests soaking up cities and small towns alike. Despite seeing his home team eliminated by Paraguay, a German’s tears were for love of the U.S. after buying into propaganda about how “the country’s not safe.”

During an interview with NBC10 Boston’s Oscar Margáin, Sebastian Kraus could be seen repeatedly wiping away tears with his hands and his shirt as he got choked up about his experience as a visitor to America.

“I fell in love with this country, and this was so emotional, I even cried in the stadium,” he told the reporter after being seen taking a moment to collect himself, including a breathing exercise, having been asked, “Why? Help us understand, why is this so impactful to you?”

Juxtaposed against video he shared with the outlet of a group of strangers driving him back to his hotel where he joyfully expressed, “Bob takes us home,” and “America is great,” Kraus told Margáin, “To be honest, I was a bit scared or had a fear to travel to the United States. News about shootings and criminals and that the country’s not safe.”…

“We owe America a huge apology, because America is nothing like what the media tells us,” he said in a social media video. “Everyone is so friendly, everyone is so accommodating, and I’ve honestly had the best time.”…

His whole life in Germany, he’s been fed lies about America by their media. There’s a reason so many Europeans mock the US until they visit it for themselves; they’ve been brainwashed by the politicians and media elites. 

America’s relationship with God from its birth was independence from Great Britain through dependence on Heaven’s help. This is a truth that applies to believers in Jesus Christ. It also applies to those who are in Satan’s grip, needing to come into liberty offered only through God’s Son, who died and rose again to make the lost free from sin-bondage.

Our independence from the evil one, Satan, who seeks to destroy humankind, can be only achieved through dependence upon God’s plan of redemption.

Here yet again is that plan: “That if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and will believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:9-10).

Terry James is an author, general editor, and co-author of numerous books on Bible prophecy.

Source: America’s Independence From Tyrannical English Governance Would Never Have Succeeded Without Dependence On God – Harbinger’s Daily