(Citizens for a New Louisiana) — A recent article circulating on social media claims that State Treasurer (and candidate for U.S. Senate) John Fleming has long opposed Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). At the same time, claiming that Louisiana Freedom Caucus member, state Senator Blake Miguez supposedly played a role in “bringing CCS to Louisiana.” The article frames this contrast as proof of ideological purity on one side and corruption and compromise on the other.

Initially, I thought it was published on the Gateway Pundit, a high-traffic site widely amplified in conservative media. Instead, the article appeared on Joe Hoft’s site — a much smaller platform operated by the brother of Gateway Pundit publisher Jim Hoft. That site is often used as a feeder channel to test narratives before deciding whether to push them to broader audiences. In other words, this article was a soft-launch messaging test, not a public policy argument.

When writing this rebuttal, I planned to note that the JoeHoft.com article was not an official statement from the Fleming campaign. The article’s timeline did not support the claims, and its core assertions contradict Fleming’s own recorded statements. However, last night, Fleming’s campaign amplified the piece by sharing it on social media.

Either way, let’s look at the claims and compare them with the verifiable timeline and documented statements available in the public domain.

The Article Is Framed to Create a Narrative

The piece tries to position Fleming as a long-standing, early, ideological opponent of CCS, and Blake Miguez as a late-arriving, opportunistic supporter of CCS. But the documented reality is that CCS was not a public, hot-button issue in Louisiana until 2022 or later.

The bills referenced from 2020, including Sharon Hewitt‘s SB 353, were passed during a period when CCS was not understood as:

• A property rights issue,
• An eminent domain risk,
• A groundwater contamination threat,
• A federal regulatory foothold in Louisiana.

The purpose of those bills was the same as that of similar legislation passed in dozens of states at the time: positioning state agencies to access federal energy infrastructure subsidies. Federal money is a trap that captures state governments every single time it’s tried.

At the time, few in the public, the Legislature, or the energy sector were debating carbon dioxide injection into aquifers. That debate did not begin until 2022, when large-scale injection proposals surfaced in places like Livingston Parish’s Lake Maurepas and other locations across Louisiana.

What Fleming Actually Said About CCS — On Video

Fleming said on video that he only recently learned about carbon capture and began opposing it after realizing what it was. If Fleming says he only learned about CCS recently, then he could not have been fighting it in 2015, 2020, or even 2024.

Therefore, the central claim of the article is disproved using Fleming’s own recorded statements. So the article’s claim that “John Fleming was standing against this threat… long before his critics knew it existed” cannot be true. One cannot oppose something before knowing it exists. But this brings us to a critical detail that cannot be dismissed.

And this is where the problem becomes obvious.

The article’s authors, Christopher Alexander and Christy Haik, are also the co-host and regular guest on the very podcast where Fleming was recorded in August of 2025, making that statement! You can watch the uncropped video showing Alexander staring blankly as Fleming announced, “Bring that forward to Carbon Capture, which I had only heard a little about, ever, until only a few months ago.”

So, the authors can’t feign ignorance and say, “We didn’t know.” One of them was literally sitting there, attentively listening, when Fleming made clear that his is but a recent entry in the Carbon Capture debate. In fact, his verbal statement on timing, captured on video, aligns with his first public policy position issued on Carbon Capture, recorded on Facebook on June 22, 2025.

Section 1109 Was Not a Pro-CCS Vote

The authors claim that Fleming didn’t fund CCS in 2015 — the law merely required a report — and this may well be technically true. However, the broader implication — that Fleming took an anti-CCS stand back then — is false.

At that time, Section 1109 wasn’t treated as a climate agenda bill at all. It was part of a routine energy infrastructure package. Nobody in Louisiana — Fleming included — had identified CCS as a threat in 2015. The article tries to create the illusion that because Pelosi and Schiff opposed the bill, Fleming must have been fighting the climate agenda. That’s just team-sports logic, not actual policy history.

The Legislature’s Part is Also Misframed

Bills that the entire legislature unanimously supported in 2020 were aimed at positioning Louisiana to receive federal green subsidy dollars. The money was flowing, so, as Louisiana is known best for, they made arrangements to accept it. They were part of the broader economic development subsidy environment—not a CCS-specific awareness campaign.

Fleming, Miguez, Bel Edwards, LABI, the major refinery and chemical lobby groups, or the sheriffs didn’t understand the geological and property rights implications until late 2021–2022, when groups like Helix, Air Products, and Talos/Chevron/Denbury started site-acquisition and injection lease strategies in Ascension, St. James, Livingston, and southwest Louisiana.

So claiming any of them was ideologically “for” or “against” CCS in 2020 is just false.

Now, before you start in with the “holier than thou” talking points, realize that in November 2024, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly supported Biden’s Green New Scam faux “economic development’ money laundering operation at the ballot box. With a substantial 66% turnout, 1,367,876 of 1,871,151 Louisiana voters (73%) said they would accept “free” federal funds for installing wind turbines off the coast of Louisiana. That wasn’t a survey. It was a statewide election — with turnout high enough that most readers participated.

The Real Issue Is Messaging Strategy, Not Policy History

This type of narrative has appeared before in Louisiana politics, particularly in conservative intra-party races. The pattern is recognizable:

• A moral purity test is constructed out of retrospective reinterpretation.
• Years-old votes are selectively reinterpreted through the lens of present-day outrage.
• Republicans are pressured to attack one another instead of the policy problem itself.

This same messaging strategy surfaced in the Public Service Commission race last year, when these groups used half-truths as political weapons against Jean-Paul Coussan. The tactic backfired, harming the intended beneficiary — Julie Quinn’s campaign. It appeared again in the Brach Myers / Jesse Regan race and several others.

These were not isolated instances. The same network of activists has repeatedly deployed similar messaging operations in recent intra-party Republican contests — not to clarify policy differences, but to provoke distrust among conservatives. In most cases, voters ultimately recognized that false narratives were being used to manipulate them emotionally, and they recoiled from it. You’re welcome.

We Are Seeing the Same Playbook Again

Alexander and Haik’s article is not an attempt to explain the history of CCS. It is an attempt to create division among conservatives by rewriting that history into an incendiary narrative. These are the tactics Democrat groups have used for decades to create chaos among Republicans.

The fingerprints are unmistakable. The pattern is familiar:

• Chris Alexander and Christy Haik wrote a knowingly false narrative.
• Both are currently promoting John Fleming for the U.S. Senate position.
• The goal is to frame the Senate race as another referendum on CCS, where:
  • Fleming is a heroic conservative defender, even though he told Alexander on camera that he had only recently learned about carbon capture.
  • Miguez is now being presented as a collaborator — despite Alexander himself publicly ranking Miguez as the #1 most conservative legislator in Louisiana.

Neither the timeline nor the facts support the article’s framing. Alexander and Haik’s work is not a factual analysis, but an attempt to mislead the public yet again. And once the public understands the timeline, the narrative falls apart.

The Most Important Point

The article reframes past events to incite a modern intra-conservative power struggle, rather than reflecting what actually happened when CCS was introduced. Few knew what Carbon Capture and Sequestration was in 2020. So any attempt to pretend that someone was a principled anti-CCS warrior back then is automatically revisionist. The fight simply did not exist yet.

It is reasonable to acknowledge:

• CCS is now understood to present risks to property rights and groundwater.
• Many legislators supported enabling frameworks before those risks were widely known.
• Some have since revised their position and their votes as more information has emerged.

When legislators adjust their positions based on new facts, that is not weakness. That is how responsible governance works. The question today is not who guessed the future correctly in 2020. The fight is not about personalities — it is about protecting our land, our water, and the right of local communities to govern themselves. The question is:

Who understands the risks now — and will protect Louisiana citizens, landowners, and local communities going forward?

That is a meaningful and constructive discussion. The rest is political theater.