When Eugene Vindman first started running for the VA07 Democratic nomination back in November 2023, mostly what I knew about him was that he was “the twin brother of retired US Army Col. Alexander Vindman – one of the high-profile witnesses during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment,” and that he was “a behind-the-scenes advisor for his brother during those proceedings, and like his brother was eventually forced out of that role by the Trump administration as retaliation.” In short, I knew about the Vindmans as American heroes, fighting back after “phone calls between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that ultimately led to the U.S. president’s first impeachment trial.”
As for Eugene Vindman’s political viewpoints, I had absolutely no idea – mostly assumed he was apolitical, heard rumors that he had some Republican leanings, but who knows; it didn’t particularly matter in the context of Trump’s appalling behavior. But when Vindman started running as a Democrat to succeed Abigail Spanberger in the U.S. House, obviously his political ideology and positions became relevant. And, while my guess was that he either *was* a relatively conservative Democrat or would position himself as one for political purposes in “purple”/competitive VA07, I didn’t really know.
At this point, though, we’ve gotten a bunch of votes, so we can start to draw some tentative conclusions. According to the Progressive Punch scorecard, Vindman ranks #200 in the U.S. House in terms of his progressive score, also as the least-progressive Democrat in the Virginia U.S. House delegation, and with a “C” progressive score “vs. district tilt.” Which is pretty much what one might expect for someone representing a district like VA07, I guess, so no particular surprises there.
I’d also note that, at least so far, I’ve been mostly pleased with Rep. Vindman, particularly his strong stances for democracy, for Ukraine, against Trump’s authoritarianism, etc. For a few examples of what I’m referring to, see Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Condemns “Blatant Lies and Intimidation from US Attorney Pushing Trump’s Retribution Campaign” (Rep. Vindman: Trump is “weaponizing government and lying to intimidate and silence public servants like me, and it’s not going to work.”); Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) First 45 Days of Trump Administration Have “Truly Been an Abomination”; Sees “Rapid Retreat” from the American Dream; Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Says Trump, a “Mad King” Surrounded by “third-rate fanatics and clowns from the MAGA world,” Is Turning “American foreign policy from a force for good in the world to a force for evil”; Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Rips Trump for Having “pretty much given away the farm” on Ukraine and for His “lawful but awful” Firings of Top Military Leadership; Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Argues “Nazism has full-on invaded the GOP,” While “Trump referred to himself as a KING” (Vindman vows to “do everything in my power to fight back against MAGA hatred and extremism”); etc. All great stuff.
So…with that intro about how I’ve mostly been very happy with Rep. Vindman, there *have* been a few votes that I take strong exception with – one of which I’ll focus on, below, as it just happened the other day, the other two being the Laken Riley Act (which, as Sen. Tim Kaine said, “would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to use its limited time and detention facilities to indefinitely detain undocumented people who have been arrested for very minor crimes, regardless of whether they actually pose a danger to the community”), the second being his vote, as one of just 11 House Democrats to vote with House Republicans, to undo the Biden administration’s energy efficiency standards for gas tankless water heaters (these standards would both save people money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
And the most recent vote that I strongly disagreed with was…this one, ‘Congressional disapproval, of the rule submitted by the EPA relating to “California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II.'” For an excellent explanation for many of the reasons why this was a really, really bad vote, see this NY Times article (“Why 35 House Democrats Joined Republicans Against a Major Climate Policy”) which explains that 35 Democrats (including Rep. Vindman):
“[J]oined…last week to help Republicans repeal [the] landmark requirement that all new vehicles sold in California be electric or otherwise nonpolluting by 2035. In doing so, [they] helped President Trump and the Republican majority to undercut the nation’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars.”
UGH. The NY Times article also notes:
- “The 246-to-164 vote in the House stunned environmentalists, who said they were struggling to understand why nearly three dozen Democrats voted to kill one of the most ambitious climate policies in the country“
- “California’s plan would “save money, put the country in position to fight climate change and allow us to compete in the global marketplace,” Ms. Oge said, nodding to the fact that electric vehicles are cheaper to operate and maintain over the long run than gas-powered cars.”
- “To overturn the state’s action, House Republicans invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that permits lawmakers to reverse recently adopted regulations with a simple majority vote. But the California ban is not a federal regulation. It’s a waiver under the Clean Air Act, something that has been granted more than a hundred times over the years by administrations of both parties. And it is not subject to congressional review, according to a 2023 decision by the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian. Still, the Senate is expected to act within weeks. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, warned Monday of “dangerous and irreparable consequences” if Senate Republicans defied the parliamentarian.”
- “Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, said he was ‘disappointed but not surprised’ in the number of lawmakers from his party who voted against the policy. ‘I chalk it up to the intense and misleading lobbying by the oil industry,’ he said. He accused Republicans of ‘misguided and cynical attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and undercut California’s climate leadership.'”
- “Federal records show that since January oil and gas companies along with automakers, car dealers and free market groups spent more than $10 million lobbying lawmakers about the California plan. That’s in addition to a seven-figure campaign by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents petroleum refiners.”
- “‘There’s no sugar coating this,’ said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters. ‘This was a terrible vote.'”
So…yeah, “this was a terrible vote” by Vindman and the other 34 Dems (none from Virginia – all Dems from our delegation, other than Rep. Vindman, voted no) who voted the same way, for a bunch of important reasons. First of all, the vote was ILLEGAL, as California’s standards are “not subject to congressional review.” Period. Second, it’s misguided in terms of economics (more fuel efficient vehicles save consumers money over the life of the vehicle), environment (more efficient vehicles pollute less), etc. As the Environmental Defense Fund explains, the California standards:
“…are vital to reducing air pollution, such as fine particulate matter and smog, that causes deaths and serious health harms, like heart attacks and strokes, and can trigger asthma attacks. They also will save people in California and states that have adopted the standards hundreds of billions of dollars through 2050 in reduced fuel, maintenance and repair costs.”
Perhaps most importantly, as Public Citizen explains:
“The independent GAO and the respected Senate Parliamentarian have reaffirmed decades of precedent that the Clean Air Act’s waivers for California and aligned states are not subject to the Congressional Review Act. With House Republicans moving these legally baseless CRA resolutions forward, they are not only undermining state rights but also setting a dangerous precedent for all administrative actions moving forward.
“Abusing the CRA to target policies far outside its reach would be a calamity both within and well beyond the scope of environmental protections. If the House passes these baseless and harmful CRAs, it would not only violate long held precedent but open a Pandora’s Box of reckless attacks on vital safeguards for Americans in nearly every aspect of our lives. The House should stop wasting its time on reckless votes and allow California and other aligned states to set stronger clean air standards without interference.”
To me, that alone should have been sufficient for EVERY member of the US House to vote no on this. Of course, given that Republicans are completely off the deep end, there was no hope they’d ever do the right thing. But *Democrats*??? C’mon, what the hell are you doing voting for this illegal, dangerous, polluting, dishonest garbage? And no, this would NOT save working people money; in fact, studies consistently show that zero-emissions vehicles *save* consumers money – a lot of it, actually, over the lifetime of the vehicle (sure, you can just look at up-front costs, but if you use that reasoning, then it is an argument against basically ALL efficiency standards, or solar panels on your roof or whatever, since these almost ALWAYS pay off over time…and then start making you money, but that doesn’t happen on Day #1, obviously).
The bottom line for me is that Rep. Vindman’s vote for this was both surprising and disappointing, for a bunch of substantive reasons, but first and foremost because it’s a classic example of far-right/MAGA Republicans: a) trampling on “states’ rights,” which they claimed for decades to care deeply about, but obviously don’t GAF about; b) violating the law, in this case that the California standards are clearly NOT subject to the Congressional Review Act (which is why Chuck Schumer cites “dangerous and irreparable consequences” if Congress proceeds down this path); c) caving to polluters and trashing the environment; d) actually COSTING working people money; e) slowing the absolutely crucial transition off of fossil fuel-powered vehicles; etc. The fact that any Democrats would vote for this is really baffling, not to mention troubling. Let’s hope this was an aberration, never to be repeated, because we really can’t afford to make Trump’s path towards authoritarianism any easier, or to commit major “unforced errors” such as this appalling vote.
Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter
