WHERE’S ROUZER?

David Rouzer, the U.S. Representative for North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, serves on several key congressional committees that shape policies impacting his constituents in New Hanover County. His campaign contributions reveal significant financial backing from industries directly affected by his legislative decisions. Let’s examine how his donors influence his policymaking, how those industries align with his committee roles, and the resulting consequences for the residents of New Hanover County.

Rouzer’s Key Committee Assignments

Rouzer holds influential positions on three major congressional committees, which directly impact federal policies related to infrastructure, agriculture, and environmental regulation:

Transportation & Infrastructure Committee

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (Chairman)
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

Agriculture Committee

Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit (Vice Chair)
Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development
Subcommittee on Forestry

Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Subcommittee on Environment

These committees give him considerable influence over federal spending, environmental policy, and agricultural subsidies, making his industry ties highly relevant.

Industry Influence and Campaign Contributions

Rouzer’s top campaign contributors represent industries that directly benefit from the policies he oversees. The following breakdown outlines his largest donors, their connections to his legislative work, and their potential impact on New Hanover County.

Fossil Fuel and Energy Interests

Major Donors:

Duke Energy ($10,000) – A major utility company operating coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants.
Koch Inc. ($10,000) – A corporate giant with significant interests in oil refining, pipelines, and petrochemicals.
Phillips 66 ($5,000) – A major oil refining and transportation company.
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers ($5,000) – Represents gasoline wholesalers and fuel distributors.

Committee Influence:

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Rouzer has influence over national transportation policies affecting fuel demand, infrastructure development, and emissions regulations.
On the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, he oversees pipeline safety and oil transportation policies, which benefit fossil fuel companies seeking deregulation.
His role on the Subcommittee on Environment should focus on climate resilience and pollution control, yet his vote to eliminate methane regulations (H.J.RES.35) benefited fossil fuel donors.

Impact:

Increased air pollution from deregulated methane emissions affects public health, particularly respiratory conditions.
Coastal communities like Wilmington face rising sea levels and hurricane intensification due to climate change, worsened by fossil fuel-driven global warming.
High energy costs and a lack of investment in clean energy infrastructure hinder economic growth and sustainability.

Agriculture and Agribusiness Interests

Major Donors:

National Cotton Council ($13,000) – A major agricultural lobbying group.
American Cotton Shippers Association ($10,000) – Represents cotton traders and exporters.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ($10,000) – A powerful meat industry lobbying group.
National Pork Producers Council ($10,000) – Represents industrial pork producers.
USA Rice Federation ($5,000) – A key advocate for the rice farming industry.

Committee Influence:

As Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit, Rouzer helps shape the Farm Bill, federal crop insurance programs, and agricultural subsidies.
His Subcommittee on Forestry position allows him to influence land-use policies that affect agribusiness expansion and environmental regulations.

Impact:

Agribusiness lobbying promotes weaker environmental regulations, which can lead to water pollution and reduced protections for coastal ecosystems.
Industrial farming practices can drive up fertilizer runoff, contributing to water contamination in rivers and coastal areas.
Increased subsidies for large agribusinesses may favor corporate farms over small, local farmers.

Transportation, Construction, and Real Estate

Major Donors:

Old Dominion Freight Line ($16,870) – A major trucking and logistics company.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association ($10,000) – Represents construction material manufacturers.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ($10,000) – Supports infrastructure projects requiring raw materials.
Weyerhaeuser Co. ($10,000) – A timber and real estate development corporation.
National Association of Home Builders ($10,000) – Represents large real estate developers and homebuilders.

Committee Influence:

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Rouzer helps allocate federal infrastructure funds, influencing road construction, transit expansion, and freight logistics.
His role on the Agriculture and Forestry subcommittees affects land-use policies, deforestation regulations, and urban development incentives.

Impact:

While infrastructure spending benefits roadways and development, weak environmental oversight can increase coastal erosion and overdevelopment risks.
Construction and real estate expansion must balance economic growth with sustainability, but Rouzer’s industry ties suggest a priority for deregulation over responsible development.
Increased trucking and freight traffic contributes to pollution and road congestion in Wilmington and surrounding areas.

Industry Over Constituents

Rouzer’s campaign contributions reflect clear industry influence, particularly from fossil fuels, agribusiness, and construction sectors—all of which stand to gain from weakened regulations and industry-friendly policies. His committee roles align with his top donors' interests, raising concerns about whether he is representing New Hanover County or serving industry backers.

Fossil fuel donors benefited from his vote to repeal methane regulations, worsening climate risks for coastal communities.
Agribusiness lobbyists push for policies that can harm water quality and favor large-scale industrial farming over small farmers.
Construction and real estate donors gain from his infrastructure influence, but unchecked development could hurt coastal sustainability.

Ultimately, Rouzer’s voting record and policy stances favor industries that contribute to pollution, climate risks, and economic inequality—issues that directly impact New Hanover County residents. His alignment with corporate donors over community needs raises the question: Is he truly representing his constituents, or the industries funding his campaigns?

Call to Action for New Hanover County Voters

Demand transparency: Hold Rouzer accountable for his industry ties and voting record.
Push for environmental protections: Climate change is a growing threat to the region.
Support policies that balance economic growth and sustainability: Infrastructure spending should protect communities, not just benefit corporations.
Vote with awareness: New Hanover County residents must decide whether Rouzer’s industry-backed policies align with their best interests.

David Rouzer’s Vote on H.J.RES.35:

A Betrayal of New Hanover County

Congressman David Rouzer’s vote to nullify the EPA’s methane emissions regulation is a clear betrayal of New Hanover County’s public health, economy, and environment. As a member of key congressional committees overseeing transportation, agriculture, science, and environmental policy, Rouzer should understand the dangers of methane pollution and climate change—especially for a coastal community like Wilmington. Instead, he prioritized fossil fuel industry interests over the people he was elected to serve.

Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, contributing to rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes, and worsening air quality—all major threats to New Hanover County. Yet, Rouzer voted to protect polluters, ensuring that oil and gas companies face no financial penalties for excessive emissions. His role on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Environment Subcommittee should have positioned him as an advocate for stronger climate protections. Instead, his vote actively undermines science-based policies meant to safeguard his own district.

Rouzer’s campaign tells the real story. His financial backing from fossil fuel donors—including Duke Energy, Koch Inc., and Phillips 66—explains his push to dismantle EPA regulations that hold these companies accountable. These corporations profit when emissions rules are weakened, and Rouzer delivered for them at the expense of his constituents.

This vote isn’t just about the environment—it’s about who Rouzer really represents. New Hanover County relies on clean air, clean water, and a stable climate for its economy, from tourism and fishing to small businesses and real estate. By siding with corporate polluters, Rouzer is jeopardizing jobs, local industries, and the long-term health of the community.

New Hanover County deserves a leader who protects the people, not the polluters. Rouzer’s priorities are clear, and if he refuses to put his constituents first, voters should remember that when it matters most—at the ballot box.

The NOAA Layoffs and Their Impact on New Hanover County

The firing of 880 NOAA employees, including forecasters and climate scientists, threatens public safety, emergency preparedness, and climate research. Weaker storm forecasts and delayed warnings put lives, property, and local industries at risk. Despite these dangers, Congressman David Rouzer has remained silent, failing to stand up for his constituents and their need for strong federal weather monitoring services.

New Hanover County depends on NOAA for storm tracking, flood monitoring, and emergency alerts. Fewer forecasters mean less accurate hurricane predictions and harder evacuation planning. Slower emergency response times and weaker coordination with local agencies leave residents exposed. As hurricanes intensify, cutting NOAA’s workforce is reckless. Rouzer, who sits on committees overseeing infrastructure and environmental policy, should be fighting to protect these resources—but instead, his inaction signals complacency in leaving the region vulnerable.

NOAA tracks rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and climate trends. Fewer researchers mean less data to guide infrastructure planning and flood prevention. Weakening environmental tracking threatens wetlands, accelerates saltwater intrusion, and worsens ocean warming—issues critical to New Hanover County’s stability. Rouzer has backed policies favoring deregulation over environmental protections, further putting coastal communities at risk.

These layoffs are politically motivated and weaken America’s disaster preparedness. The administration calls them efficiency cuts, but in reality, gutting NOAA leaves local governments scrambling to fill the gaps. North Carolina’s coastal communities will suffer most, forced to rely on underfunded state and private resources for crucial weather and climate data. Rouzer’s silence raises serious concerns—does he serve industry donors or the people who elected him?

Cutting NOAA’s workforce increases New Hanover County’s risks from hurricanes, flooding, and economic instability. Weaker forecasts, slower emergency responses, and lost climate research will leave the region exposed. Rouzer must answer for his silence. Will he stand up for the safety of his constituents, or continue allowing reckless policies to leave them unprotected? We must demand accountability, pressure Rouzer to act, and push for NOAA’s resources to be restored before the next disaster strikes.

David Rouzer’s Responsibility in the Face of Federal Cuts: Who Pays the Price?

Representative David Rouzer has long championed conservative fiscal policy, advocating for reduced government spending and deregulation. But as mass layoffs sweep through federal agencies—crippling disaster relief, agricultural support, infrastructure funding, and scientific research—his constituents in North Carolina’s 7th District are left to bear the consequences. While Rouzer sits at the helm of key committees that directly influence transportation, agriculture, and environmental policy, his silence in the wake of these sweeping cuts is not just negligence—it’s a betrayal of the very people who elected him.

The Infrastructure Crisis Rouzer Helped Create

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Rouzer oversees critical decisions affecting roads, bridges, and public transportation. Yet, his complicity in supporting federal budget cuts means fewer funds for maintaining the roads Wilmington residents depend on daily. With cuts to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), long-overdue infrastructure projects will stall. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge—already in need of significant repairs—may suffer further delays, leading to economic disruptions for businesses and commuters alike.

Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, where Rouzer also plays a significant role, will see oversight weakened due to cuts to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). For a district with major freight routes and environmental concerns related to hazardous material transport, reduced federal oversight is an open invitation to disaster.

Turning His Back on Farmers and Rural Communities

Rouzer frequently touts his advocacy for farmers, yet his position on the Agriculture Committee has done little to shield them from impending financial hardship. The gutting of USDA programs means reduced safety nets for North Carolina farmers who rely on federal crop insurance, commodity price protections, and disaster relief assistance.

As Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit, Rouzer should be fighting to ensure that federal safety nets remain intact. Instead, he stands by while these critical programs are slashed, forcing farmers in Pender, Columbus, and New Hanover Counties to navigate an increasingly volatile agricultural market with fewer protections. The irony? These same farmers make up a crucial part of his voter base—yet he allows policies that make it harder for them to succeed.

Disaster Relief in Jeopardy

New Hanover County knows hurricanes all too well. From Hurricane Florence’s devastation in 2018 to annual storm threats, federal disaster relief funding is not just a luxury—it’s a necessity. Yet, the very agencies responsible for aiding disaster-stricken communities, including FEMA, are experiencing mass layoffs under the same spending cuts Rouzer has refused to condemn.

Without adequate FEMA resources, flood recovery will be slower, emergency response times will lag, and rebuilding efforts will stall. If Rouzer truly represents North Carolina’s coastal communities, why is he not standing up to defend them from the devastating effects of these cuts?

Environmental Consequences: Ignoring Coastal Realities

As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and more specifically, the Subcommittee on Environment, Rouzer has the opportunity to advocate for policies that protect North Carolina’s coastline from climate change, pollution, and erosion. Instead, he remains passive while funding for environmental protection agencies, climate research, and coastal resilience programs is stripped away.

With the EPA facing major budget reductions, critical programs that monitor air and water quality are at risk. For a region that already struggles with industrial pollution and GenX contamination in the Cape Fear River, Rouzer’s failure to safeguard federal environmental oversight puts public health on the line.

Who Does David Rouzer Really Serve?

The residents of North Carolina’s 7th District elected David Rouzer to represent their interests, not rubber-stamp reckless budget cuts that harm their livelihoods, infrastructure, and environment. Yet, his track record suggests that his allegiance lies more with party politics and corporate interests than the people who put him in office.

His silence on FEMA cuts tells coastal communities that their safety is expendable. His lack of advocacy for farmers signals that their economic stability is an afterthought. His failure to stand against infrastructure defunding proves that everyday commuters and businesses are not his priority. His disregard for environmental protections shows he is willing to gamble with the health of his own district.

It’s Time for Accountability

David Rouzer cannot continue to ignore the direct consequences of his inaction. His constituents deserve better—leaders who fight for their communities rather than toeing the party line at their expense.

New Hanover County and all of North Carolina’s 7th District must ask themselves: Is Rouzer truly representing our needs, or is he merely a spectator as our roads deteriorate, our farmers struggle, and our coastal communities face increasing environmental threats? If the answer is the latter, then it’s time for a new representative who will fight for the interests of the people—not the interests of political expediency.

In 2026, let’s hold David Rouzer accountable.