Advancing American Freedom Foundation
Mike Pence’s advocacy group — a Leonard-Leo-funded booster of fossil-fuel “energy dominance.”
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
In its short, 5-year existence, Advancing American Freedom (AAF) has spent millions promoting oil and gas production and fighting clean energy policy. Through the Concord Fund, the group has accepted money linked to the conservative legal activist Leonard Leo, who has used his funding network to shield fossil fuel companies from climate change-related lawsuits. The organization has also received $325,000 from National Philanthropic Trust, connected back to Suncor billioniare investor Paul Singer, between 2023 and 2024, according to IRS Form 990 filings. AAF’s founder is Mike Pence, who has rejected the scientific consensus that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change.
The organization describes itself as a conservative policy and legal-advocacy organization defending traditional values, limited government, and economic freedom. Its current public leadership includes Pence as founder and Marc Short as board chairman. At its founding, Pence said the organization’s mission is to propose conservative policy solutions to economic, foreign policy, and Constitutional issues as it promotes Trump’s “successful” policies.
As governor of Indiana, Mike Pence consistently supported coal and expanded domestic fossil-fuel production, opposed the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, and declared that “Indiana is a pro-coal state.” Pence also has longstanding ties to the Koch political network, including through longtime adviser Marc Short—former president of the Koch-associated Freedom Partners—and through his repeated participation in Koch donor-network events.
AAF operates through two legally distinct tax-exempt entities: Advancing American Freedom, Inc., an IRS-recognized 501(c)(4) whose contributions are not tax deductible, and Advancing American Freedom Foundation, Inc., an IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) whose contributions are tax deductible. AAF itself describes the foundation as the 501(c)(4) organization’s “sister 501(c)(3) foundation.” A review of the website shows that the entities are presented through the same Advancing American Freedom website and public brand and have overlapping officers and leadership. Because the website often attributes publications and legal activities simply to “AAF,” the public-facing material does not always specify which of the two legal entities is responsible. The 2024 IRS filings also show substantial leadership overlap. For example, the 2024 filings identify:
Timothy Chapman as president of both entities;
Marc Short as foundation chairman and part of the broader organization’s leadership;
The same 2024 IRS filings show Chapman compensated by the two related organizations.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
AAF aggressively advances fossil fuel interests. In 2022, it spent $10 million on advertising and advocacy against the Biden Administration’s energy policy and promoting increased U.S. oil and gas production. The campaign blamed climate policies for driving up gas prices. In 2022-23, AAF’s Freedom Agenda called for policies designed to increase domestic oil and gas leasing and permitting; expediting pipelines and energy infrastructure, weakening or reversing climate-related regulations, opposing restrictions on fossil fuel financing, curbing environmental review, eliminating subsidies for clean energy, and establishing “energy dominance.”
AAF has been a persistent opponent of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing when such policies limit fossil-fuel investment. It applauded Vanguard’s withdrawal from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, declaring that climate-oriented asset managers were attempting to “destroy American energy companies and American jobs.” AAF has opposed allowing retirement-plan managers to use ESG considerations. AAF opposes any pressure on fossil-fuel companies to disclose climate risks, reduce emissions, or redirect investment away from carbon-intensive activities. A 2026 memo claims that eliminating all U.S. energy related fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions would have a “negligible” effect on global temperature.
In 2024, AAF received a $1.25 million Concord Fund grant, after receiving $500,000 from Concord the previous year. The fund was formed to support conservative judicial nominees and promote an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
AAF led a coalition and filed a brief supporting Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, Supreme Court No. 25-170. The coalition includes: International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, JCCWatch.org, Landmark Legal Foundation, Yankee Institute, Tim Jones, former speaker, Missouri House, and Founder, Leadership for America Institute, Jenny Beth Martin, Honorary Chairman, Tea Party Patriots Action, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Hon. William Wagner (Ret), Distinguished professor of law Emeritus. The brief asks the court to prevent Boulder’s state-law case from proceeding. The brief argues that the Constitution does not allow Colorado to use state tort law to regulate interstate and international energy production and climate policy. Rather, only the federal government can do that.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
America needs energy dominance by expanding oil and gas production because climate policies are a war on American energy.
The claim falsely treats American energy as synonymous with fossil fuels. The United States already produces record amounts of wind, solar, battery storage, and nuclear power. Climate policies generally seek to change the energy mix, not eliminate energy production. The International Energy Agency concludes that scaling up renewables, electrification and efficiency can deliver the majority of emissions reductions needed this decade while strengthening energy security.
ESG and climate investing hurt investors and American energy companies.
Climate risk is increasingly viewed as a financial risk, not merely a political preference. Factors such as wildfire risk, flooding, heat, and stranded assets can materially affect company value. Having large institutional investors consider those risks is consistent with ordinary fiduciary analysis.
Government support for electric vehicles and clean energy merely distorts markets.
This argument ignores that fossil fuels themselves have long benefited—and continue to benefit--from public support. The policy debate therefore is not whether government influences energy markets—it already does—but how government support should be allocated among competing energy technologies.
In AAF’s Suncor amicus brief, the brief argues that Boulder is attempting to regulate interstate energy production through state tort law rather than through Congress.
Boulder's lawsuit seeks damages under Colorado tort law for alleged deception and climate-related harms. State tort suits have long addressed harms involving interstate commerce including tobacco, asbestos, opioids, and PFAS. Just because a lawsuit can influence future corporate behavior does not make the lawsuit a federal regulation.
Allowing Boulder to proceed would let one state dictate national energy policy.
Colorado is not regulating emissions nationwide. Instead, Boulder seeks compensation for alleged injuries under generally applicable state-law causes of action. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the possibility a damages award may influence business conduct does not automatically transform a tort suit into unconstitutional regulation.