Plugged in, checked out: The Dept. of Energy needs a reality surge



The Department of Energy needs a complete overhaul.

Congress established the DOE in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis, consolidating a patchwork of energy-related programs under one roof. The department took over the management of nuclear programs, national research labs, and a variety of alternative energy efforts. Its 2025 budget tops $50 billion. It supports 14,000 employees and a staggering 95,000 contractors across 83 field locations.

The Department of Government Efficiency should scrutinize the DOE’s effectiveness like any other federal agency. But this department demands a different kind of review. The issue isn’t just waste or mismanagement. It’s mission.

Energy is the lifeblood of any advanced society. The DOE should pursue one overriding goal: making America energy-independent with a long-term strategy for cheap, abundant power. That’s not what it’s doing.

Yes, the energy sector should remain a free-market enterprise. But it’s also a national asset. Energy production and distribution are essential to American sovereignty, economic security, and global influence. That makes the DOE more than just another bloated bureaucracy — it’s a strategic liability unless restructured with purpose.

If the DOE can’t define that purpose, the DOGE must.

Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity.

One of the department’s core missions should be to secure American energy independence. This is not just good policy — it’s a national security imperative.

Wars are won or lost based on the ability to fuel military and industrial operations. If America can’t meet its own energy needs, it risks becoming dependent on hostile regimes that can — and will — weaponize energy supplies against us.

Previous administrations have sabotaged this mission. The DOE should not focus on environmental goals like reducing carbon emissions. Those objectives often conflict with the department’s strategic purpose. “Climate change” is not a scientific certainty — it’s an ideological construct. Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the past 20,000 years, submerging the ruins of countless ancient civilizations, and none of that was caused by human industry.

Yet the Energy Department continues to throw billions at preventing a hypothetical sea rise of just a few feet — this time supposedly caused by human activity. That’s not just wasteful; it’s dangerously off mission. Nearly 40% of recent DOE budgets have gone to renewables and carbon capture. That funding should be powering the country — not chasing climate fantasies.

It’s absurd. America holds vast fossil fuel reserves — thanks to innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — that can provide cheap, reliable energy. These resources can make us energy-independent and globally competitive. The DOE should clear the way for fossil fuel extraction and pipeline construction, starting with permitting on federal lands and aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the department should end all spending on alternative energy development — except nuclear.

The free market, not the federal government, should drive innovation. The DOE needs to stop subsidizing every corner of the energy industry, fossil fuels included. Government handouts distort markets, discourage competition, and reward political connections instead of performance. Cronyism, fraud, and corporate capture follow wherever subsidies go. A healthy, well-capitalized U.S. energy sector doesn’t need government favors — it needs government to get out of the way. Let consumers, not bureaucrats, decide the winners.

To sharpen its focus, the Department of Energy must shed every responsibility not central to its mission. Environmental policy belongs with the Environmental Protection Agency. Government-run electricity operations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, should be sold to private firms.

The DOE has no business in genomics. It should transfer its Human Genome Project work elsewhere. The Pentagon — not the DOE — should manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. The department should also end its subsidies for synthetic fuels like ethanol, which distort agricultural markets and drive up food prices. Many of its remaining research functions should be reassigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the National Science Foundation.

The department should also abandon appliance efficiency mandates that degrade performance, frustrate consumers, and increase costs.

It must reject the Biden administration’s bloated Green New Deal agenda, which has dragged the DOE into a fantasyland of bureaucratic overreach. The department should withdraw from the energy-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and related executive orders. These distractions must be repealed and the associated spending eliminated immediately.

The DOE needs to recognize the direction the world is headed: toward an electricity-dominated future. Electric vehicles are only the beginning. Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity. We’ll need fossil fuels to supply the grid for now — but that supply will become harder to access just as demand surges. The DOE must plan accordingly, not wander off chasing green illusions.

The coming surge in electricity demand cries out for a modern-day Manhattan Project — this time led by the Department of Energy. The DOE should lead a national effort to radically expand, modernize, and harden the electric grid. It must accelerate the development of small-scale nuclear fission reactors and push to make nuclear fusion commercially viable.

Nuclear energy — especially fusion — is clean, powerful, and virtually limitless. While the private sector should continue optimizing fossil fuel and alternative energy technologies, the DOE must draw up the blueprint for America’s energy future. It should clear regulatory obstacles that block meaningful progress.

So what should the DOGE do with the DOE? Strip away every distraction and narrow its mission to one goal: ensuring America has cheap, abundant, reliable energy. Everything else belongs on the chopping block.

Louisiana’s lawsuits undermine Trump’s vision of energy dominance



One of Donald Trump’s main objectives over the next four years is to restore America’s energy independence. “Drill baby, drill!” didn’t make it into his second inaugural, but it might as well have. He and his team, led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, went straight to work on efforts to reduce the nation’s dependence on energy imported from politically unstable parts of the world.

To get there, they’ve got to overcome lots of roadblocks. One of them, strangely enough, emanates from the newly renamed Gulf of America, where Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has seemingly partnered with settlement-seeking trial lawyers and radical environmentalists on activities that impede the growth of the nation’s energy sector.

You’d think the leaders of a state hunting for every dollar it can find would consider the revenue impacts before deciding whether to go on with lawsuits.

Energy analyst David Blackmon pointed out in a recent Forbes column that Landry is a plaintiff in lawsuits against energy producers working to help Trump fulfill his promise of energy independence. This doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps the president asked him about it when both were in New Orleans for Super Bowl LIX.

Even if he didn’t, here are the facts: 43 lawsuits have been filed, starting in 2013 while Landry was serving in the U.S. Congress. These lawsuits, brought by several Louisiana parishes, aim to hold private entities responsible for coastal erosion — a problem that, like many environmental issues, is a “commons” problem.

This means that because coastal erosion generally happens in nature, no single person or entity is automatically responsible unless a court finds that someone or something is. With states and local governments facing budget constraints, they have increasingly partnered with special interests to ask courts to hold deep-pocketed corporations accountable for the costs of remediation.

As Blackmon also noted, the Louisiana-based Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, found the state has suffered significant economic consequences because “when the risk of getting sued increases, the expected costs faced by companies increases, and as a result, drilling activity decreases.”

In its report, Pelican found:

  • Between 53 and 74 fewer oil wells were drilled offshore Louisiana than would have been drilled if the threat of lawsuits was lower in the state.
  • This decrease in drilling activity led to economic losses in the range of $125.7 million to $320.3 million during those 34 months for Louisiana’s oil and gas economy, which work out annually to something in the range of $44.4 million to $113 million per year.
  • Given that the average royalty rate in the coastal zone of Louisiana is approximately 20%, Pelican estimated Louisiana’s state and local governments lose $8.9 million per year to $22.6 million per year in royalty revenue.

Focus on that last point. According to the think tank, Louisiana is “losing more in royalty revenue than oil and gas producing companies are losing in profit, which are likely less than 20% of revenues on average, due to litigation risk.”

You’d think the leaders of a state hunting for every dollar it can find would consider the revenue impacts before deciding whether to go on with the lawsuits. Instead, as the state’s attorney general, Landry supported the parishes’ right to bring claims under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act and agreed not to endorse any substantive defenses raised by defendants.

Landry’s critics complain this decision may have compromised his obligation to uphold state law since, significantly, the courts later affirmed some of these defenses. In any event, it has left some of them asking if he favors the interests of the plaintiff bar over those of the oil and gas industry, a critical economic driver in the state he leads.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has recently forecasted that natural gas and oil will be the most used fuels in the U.S. through 2050. Trump’s day-one executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” encourages “energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader long into the future.”

It’s basic economics. Increased energy demand (as the EIA predicts) combined with continual increases in supply produce lower prices. By suing the producers for billions, the governor and the other plaintiffs are handcuffing the companies providing abundant and affordable energy. Landry, unusual for such an allegedly market-friendly conservative, appears to be on the opposite side of President Trump when it comes to promoting America’s energy dominance.

Senate Republicans take the lead in the race for reconciliation



Senate Republicans unveiled their proposed reconciliation budget on Friday before the House was able to come to an agreement.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) called the budget resolution the "blueprint that unlocks the pathway for a fully paid-for reconciliation bill," addressing the border, the military, energy independence, and fiscal concerns. This budget is intended to serve as a blueprint for the Senate's two-bill approach, while the House is focusing on putting forward one "big beautiful bill."

House Republicans have made their own efforts to chip away at the reconciliation process.

"To those who voted for and support real border security and a stronger defense in a troubled world, help is on the way," Graham said in a statement Friday. "This budget resolution jump-starts a process that will give President Trump's team the money they need to secure the border and deport criminals and make America strong and more energy-independent."

The bill was published just hours before Senate Republicans are set to meet with President Donald Trump for dinner at Mar-a-Lago Friday night. At the same time, House Republicans have made their own efforts to chip away at the reconciliation process.

Top House Republicans huddled in the White House on Thursday for five hours, even postponing Speaker Mike Johnson's scheduled meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The day after, Johnson told reporters that reconciliation talks were still ongoing, even blaming the delays on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

"It may not be today, but it will be through the weekend," Johnson said. "We got a few more people we got to talk with and a couple more boxes to check. But we are almost there."

As of this writing, House Republicans have not put forward their own budget proposal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

US energy independence is under threat from a court ruling



Two new energy enterprises in the Port of Brownsville were on the cusp of ushering in a new era of business and industry for the region. Together, they would bring in billions of dollars in investment, provide major infrastructure improvements, and create thousands of jobs.

And they would lead to a domino effect of benefits for the community, such as the $30 million Texas A&M training facility that broke ground at the port this year.

This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.

Both projects received the green light in the federal permitting process, and one had even begun construction.

But then everything came to a screeching halt at the whim of a court in Washington, D.C.

For the sake of the people of South Texas, this unprecedented move — tossing out preapproved permits, including one for a facility that is already under construction — needs to be challenged.

The Rio Grande LNG terminal, projected to be one of the world's largest liquified natural gas export projects, would cost an estimated $18 billion. It is expected to generate 5,000 construction jobs, over 400 permanent positions, and potentially another 3,000 indirect jobs in the local community.

Meanwhile, Texas LNG was finalizing its investment plans to start construction. This project, too, was set to invest billions and create thousands of jobs throughout its construction phase.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had approved permits for both projects. The companies went above and beyond to comply with environmental regulations, even incorporating a carbon capture and storage facility to reduce emissions. Ironically, the court cited these environmental efforts as the reason to revoke their permits. In response, both projects have now abandoned their carbon capture efforts to comply with the court’s demands.

As Charles McConnell, a former official in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, wrote, “This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has urged FERC to appeal a court decision that halted the construction of two major liquefied natural gas terminals. Cruz’s letter to the FERC chairman stressed the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that legal disruptions do not discourage investors from backing future projects that could position America as the world’s leading energy producer.

“If project developers come to believe that federal permits can be overturned due to procedural missteps by the regulator, apart from any actions or fault by the developers, U.S. infrastructure projects will slow and stall,” Cruz wrote.

But for the people of South Texas, this outlandish reversal is a lot more personal. We need more industry and business to help our region flourish. The projects were expanding business access to South Texas significantly. Rio Grande LNG was already in the process of making the channel another 10 feet deeper to make the Port of Brownsville accessible to more ships. With the federal court ruling, all that progress will come to an end — and with it, a golden opportunity to turn South Texas into a hub of prosperity.

It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon of the permitting process and lawsuits. But what FERC and the courts do has real-world implications for everyone in South Texas. More industry leads to more jobs, and more jobs lead to more opportunities, which in turn would create more opportunities for South Texans to escape poverty.

The new LNG developments could set the region up for success in decades to come — but not if bureaucratic obstructionists continue to stand in the way.

Why It’s Terrifying That China’s Nuclear Capabilities Have Lapped The United States

China’s steady climb to the peak of nuclear energy technology underscores the need for a decisive American response.

DeSantis Outlines Earliest Actions Of His Administration If He Wins

'I think we can get it done'

Why The ‘#StopWillow’ Movement On TikTok May Be A CCP Influence Campaign

The apparent TikTok influence campaign highlights the app's power and danger.

'If you don't like our petroleum cars, well, we don't like your electric cars': Wyoming Republicans propose scrapping electric vehicles by 2035



A handful of Republican lawmakers in Wyoming aren't convinced that the destruction of a key job-producing industry in their state is inevitable. Either way, they'll be sure to go down fighting on the side of Wyoming's oil and gas workers.

Whereas other states, such as Oregon, New York, and California, have pledged to phase out combustion engines as a means of combatting the specter of anthropogenic climate change, Republicans in the state Senate and House seek to phase out new electric vehicles sales by 2035.

Republican Sens. Jim Anderson, Brian Boner, Ed Cooper, and Dan Dockstader and Reps. Donald Burkhart and Bill Henderson have sponsored a joint resolution to this effect.

In defense of a full tank of gas and an open road

The bill notes that "oil and gas production has long been one of Wyoming's proud and valued industries," which has created "countless jobs and has contributed revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout the state's history."

The Daily Mail reported that there are over 68,000 jobs in the state's oil and gas industry.

Extra to the jobs and revenue generated by oil and gas, the bill stresses that gas-powered vehicles ensure efficiencies throughout the country for a multitude of businesses in various other industries.

Whereas gas-powered cars are durable and already enjoy infrastructure in the state, "Wyoming's vast stretches of highway, coupled with a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, make the widespread use of electric vehicles impracticable for the state."

Even if taxpayers' money was effectively used laying that infrastructure, the lawmakers suggested in their bill that it would still require "massive amounts of new power generation in order to sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles."

The lawmakers noted that it's not just the open road and the demands placed on the state by EVs that pose a challenge to the gas-free paradigm championed elsewhere by Democrats. "The batteries used in electric vehicles contain critical minerals whose domestic supply is limited and at risk for disruption," they wrote.

Over the past year, there has been a supply shortage of the key metal required for EVs that use lithium-ion batteries. Bloomberg recently indicated that it is unclear whether lithium supply will catch up with demand this year, despite bearish forecasts suggesting a balanced market may soon be on the horizon.

In addition to lithium, EVs often require minerals like cobalt and nickel.

The International Energy Agency indicated in its March 2022 report on clean energy transitions that a "typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car."

The Verge reported in August that the shift to EVs will overwhelm U.S. mining operations, prompting reliance on foreign sources.

Rather than rely on foreign and possibly hostile sources to power potentially unreliable vehicles, the lawmakers suggested that Wyoming motorists should take advantage of the state's natural bounty.

The Wyoming State Geological Survey revealed in 2021 that the state ranked eighth nationally in crude oil production and ninth for natural gas production, producing over 85 million barrels of crude and over 1.37 billion MCF (MCF = one thousand cubic feet) that year.

Besides the alleged positives of Wyomingites sticking with the combustion engine, the bill highlighted at least one problem with the electric alternative that may concern environmentalists: "The critical minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in Wyoming and elsewhere will be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner."

For these reasons, the Republican lawmakers adopted the language of other anti-gas-car bills, but swapped in EVs as that which they seek to eliminate.

The bill concludes by saying, "Phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming’s oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country’s critical minerals for vital purposes."

Sen. Anderson told the Cowboy State Daily that by passing this bill, "the Legislature would be saying, 'If you don't like our petroleum cars, well, we don't like your electric cars.'"

Sen. Boner similarly suggested the bill's passage would serve to send a message; "One might even say tongue-in-cheek."

Boner added, "I'm interested in making sure that the solutions that some folks want to the so-called climate crisis are actually practical in real life. ... I just don't appreciate when other states try to force technology that isn’t ready."

California, among the states that has passed a ban on the sale of new cars with combustion engines, may have done so prematurely.

TheBlaze previously reported that the Democrat-run state's electric grid — already prone to rolling blackouts and rationing — may not be ready to handle the demands of a population increasingly adopting electricity-hungry vehicles.

Senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists Mike Jacobs told Yahoo Finance, "The use of an electric vehicle is like adding one or two air conditioners to your residence in terms of its energy increase."

According to Brouwer, "If we try to move in this direction and only use battery electric vehicles, we will fail. ... The grid cannot charge every single transportation application."

In addition to grid instability, the coerced adoption of EVs has begun to chase jobs out of the United States.

An Illinois Jeep manufacturer announced in December that it was firing thousands of American workers and moving its operations to Mexico, citing, in part, "the increasing cost related to the electrification of the automotive market."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

You Will Thrive in the Recession if You Learn the '5 Gs'| Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report
play icon

You Will Thrive in the Recession if You Learn the '5 Gs'| Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report