Washington – Former U.S. President Donald Trump reignited controversy this week by dismissing climate change as what he called “the greatest con job ever,” doubling down on his long-standing skepticism toward global warming and environmental policies.
Speaking at a campaign-style event in Iowa, Trump mocked world leaders and scientists who have warned of rising global temperatures, extreme weather, and environmental degradation. “They’ve been talking about the seas rising for decades, but nothing ever happens,” he told the crowd. “It’s a hoax, a scam designed to take away your money and your freedom.”
Trump went on to criticize renewable energy projects, particularly wind and solar, claiming they are unreliable and costly compared to traditional fossil fuels. He argued that climate action policies only hurt American workers while benefiting foreign competitors. “We have the cleanest air, the cleanest water. What we don’t need are fake solutions that destroy jobs,” he said.
His remarks come as much of the U.S. continues to grapple with record heat waves, wildfires, and flooding events that scientists have directly linked to climate change. Environmental groups and climate experts swiftly condemned Trump’s comments, warning that dismissing scientific evidence undermines urgent global efforts to prevent further damage.
The former president has a long history of rejecting climate science. During his time in office, he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, rolled back dozens of environmental protections, and promoted coal and oil production as central to American energy policy.
Political analysts say Trump’s latest remarks are aimed at energizing his core supporters, many of whom remain skeptical of climate science and hostile toward government-led climate initiatives. However, they also highlight a growing divide in U.S. politics, as Democrats and much of the international community push for faster action to combat global warming.
For now, Trump’s words reinforce his identity as a political outsider willing to reject global consensus. But they also raise fresh concerns about what a return to the White House under his leadership could mean for international climate cooperation.
Do you want me to make these controversial leader statements more sharp and dramatic in headlines (like tabloids) or keep them formal, newspaper-style?