The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed energy companies a significant procedural victory, ruling that Chevron may move a long-running Louisiana environmental lawsuit from state to federal court and, in doing so, broadened the scope of a key federal jurisdiction statute.
In a 7–1 decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-813_3e04.pdf">Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish</a>, the Court held that companies acting under federal authority may remove cases to federal court if the claims are meaningfully connected to their federal duties—even if the government did not directly control the specific conduct at issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
The dispute originated in 2013, when Louisiana parishes sued several oil companies, alleging that historic production activities—specifically those during World War II—damaged the state’s coastline. The parishes cited the use of earthen pits, vertical drilling, and the dredging of canals as violations of state law. Chevron sought to &#8220;remove&#8221; the case to federal court, arguing that during the war, it acted as a federal contractor producing high-octane aviation gasoline (&#8220;avgas&#8221;) for the U.S. military. Since the crude oil produced in Louisiana was the essential &#8220;feedstock&#8221; for that gas, Chevron claimed the lawsuit &#8220;related to&#8221; its federal duties.
The core legal question centered on whether a lawsuit challenging raw material production &#8220;relates to&#8221; a federal contract to refine those materials into a military product. The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled against Chevron, suggesting the government had not specifically directed the methods of oil extraction.
Justice Thomas, however, rejected this narrow interpretation. He emphasized that the 2011 congressional amendments to the statute replaced a strict &#8220;causal nexus&#8221; test with a much broader standard.
As Thomas noted: &#8220;The phrase &#8216;relating to&#8217; sweeps broadly. It means &#8216;to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.'&#8221;
While Thomas acknowledged that the connection cannot be &#8220;tenuous, remote, or peripheral&#8221;—famously quipping that &#8220;ordinary readers would not understand the statement that someone is &#8216;related to Joe&#8217; to refer to &#8216;a mutual tie to Adam and Eve'&#8221;—he found that Chevron’s wartime activities were deeply intertwined with federal mandates.
The Court highlighted the &#8220;all-hands-on-deck&#8221; nature of the WWII effort, where the federal government pressured companies to maximize production &#8220;day and night.&#8221; Because the specific Louisiana crude was a &#8220;preferential&#8221; grade for avgas, the extraction methods used were not independent business choices, but were driven by the need to satisfy military demand. Thomas wrote, &#8220;In this all-hands-on-deck, wartime context, Chevron needed to produce more crude oil as quickly as possible to facilitate more avgas refining, including its own. &#8230; This suit implicates acts by Chevron that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.&#8221;
This ruling is widely seen as a win for energy companies because it lowers the threshold for removing cases to federal court. By allowing indirect but meaningful connections to suffice, the decision strengthens a key procedural tool that can shape where—and potentially how—major environmental and climate lawsuits are litigated.

Chevron Corp. Jack/St. Malo Platform As Big Oil Rivals Shale In Gulf

Supreme Court Ruling In WWII-Era Oil Dispute Drives Major Win For American Energy

Courts

Energy

Oil companies

Supreme Court

U.S.

Californians’ quality of life has plummeted under Governor Gavin Newsom’s leadership. Utility rates have <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/02/09/us-news/california-electricity-bills-spiked-39-over-six-years/?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter#Echobox=1770684088">increased</a> 39% over the past six years, and the Golden State heavily <a href="https://x.com/SecretaryBurgum/status/2036586673337675939">imports</a> oil and gas from hostile nations like Brazil and Iraq. Yet, Governor Newsom is now seeking to fail up — planning to run for president in 2028. More importantly, though, it risks the spread of contagious, toxic ideas from California’s policy laboratory to the entire country.
Newsom’s low <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/02/18/us-news/california-voters-disapproval-of-gavin-newsom-hits-highest-level-since-2024-poll-show/">approval rating</a>, a meager 44% among Californians, hasn’t deterred his presidential aspirations. He gave this labyrinthine response in a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/24/gavin-newsom-interview-trump-2028-israel-00840635">recent interview</a> when asked if he was running: “You gotta have a big enough why, right? You gotta meet the moment. You gotta have the humility and the confidence at the same time to think that you can add value that doesn’t exist versus the lineup of other people.” This word salad would make Kamala Harris proud. Newsom clearly covets the Oval Office, but isn’t willing to say so yet.
Life with Newsom in charge is challenging. The governor&#8217;s tenure has seen him trade affordability and human flourishing for a radical policy agenda. His policies have <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-regulations">begun to spread</a> to left-wing states. Cars, solar panels, and water are just some of Newsom’s policy weapons of choice. 
First, California’s <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/drive-forward-light-duty-vehicle-program/advanced-clean-cars">Advanced Clean Cars II</a> Act, which would require 100% of vehicles purchased by 2035 to be electric vehicles (EVs), has been <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-regulations">adopted</a> by 12 other states. The EV example shows Newsom’s nanny-state mentality and logical contradictions. He claims the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQzuOT9MoO4&amp;t=1s">reason</a> we need EVs is “because people want something differently,” but is using government coercion to <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/03/12/us-news/trump-doj-sues-california-over-ev-mandate-forcing-mileage-rules-on-automakers/">force</a> people to buy EVs — meaning it’s not really about what people want. According to Newsom, without EV mandates, America will be left in “the dust” by China. Of course, that is totally backwards: EV mandates <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2025/10/27/the-ev-hangover-is-coming-00624344">harm</a> American automakers’ competitiveness, only aiding Beijing. Already, some states are jumping ship and reversing Newsom’s nonsensical lead: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/vermont-governor-pauses-electric-vehicle-requirements-2025-05-13/">Vermont</a>, <a href="https://landline.media/two-more-states-halt-enforcement-of-advanced-clean-trucks/">Oregon</a>, and <a href="https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/press-release/eo-delaying-md-gas-ban">Maryland</a> have stopped enforcing their EV mandates.
Second, California <a href="https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/energy-code-support-center/solar">requires</a> solar panel installations in all new nonresidential, multifamily, and single-family buildings with a few exceptions. All the while, electricity prices are astronomical due to solar power flooding the grid and regulations crippling baseload power. Since Newsom became governor, his <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/wall-street-journal-calls-gov-gavin-newsom-loosen-environmental-regulations-all-californians">regulatory madness</a> has <a href="https://fong.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-fong-fox-news-newsoms-war-energy-crippling-california-and">caused</a> over 300 energy companies to stop operating in California, and the number of oil drilling permit submissions has <a href="https://fong.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-fong-fox-news-newsoms-war-energy-crippling-california-and">fallen</a> by 95%. Yet climate mandates have made California susceptible to energy insecurity with increased renewable energy curtailments. This occurs when excess power is “thrown away” to avoid overloading the system. The <a href="http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx">California Independent System Operator</a> (CAISO), California’s grid operator, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65364">reports</a> that solar, one of the <a href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20is%20considered%20reliable%20because:%20*,of%20America's%20power%20each%20year%20since%201990">least reliable</a> energy sources available, accounts for 93% of energy curtailments in 2024. Unsurprisingly, these mandates end up <a href="https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/renewable-subsidies-are-poisoning-the-nations-electricity-grid">poisoning</a> the electricity grid and raising power costs. No wonder California’s energy prices <a href="https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/">rank</a> 49th out of 50 states.
Finally, Californians are permanently urged to <a href="https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/californias-water-crisis-isnt-a-drought-its-bad-policy/">ration</a> water and take very short showers. Why? Save water during droughts. However, the California water rationing only applies to urban areas and affects <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/california-adopts-permanent-water-rationing#:~:text=only%20about%2010%20percent%20of%20California%E2%80%99s%20annual%20water%20consumption">10%</a> of California’s annual water consumption. Forcing rationing on the masses just to virtue-signal is the definition of bad policy. According to the EPA, practical water conservation involves a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/water-research/drought-resilience-and-water-conservation">focus</a> on infrastructure, not arbitrary mandates.
Under the full Newsom plan, a Californian’s daily routine could be as follows. After waking up, the Californian would eat breakfast — at a <a href="https://californiaglobe.com/fr/californias-war-on-plastic-becomes-a-war-on-food-producers/">far higher price</a> than the same meal would cost in another state. Then they would need to drive to work — but their state-mandated EV either <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/12/251227004144.htm">needs maintenance</a> or is <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ev-charging-infrastructure-slowing-growth-here-technologies/760442/">out of charge</a>. They can’t go to work. So, they decide to stay home — in the sweltering heat. The air conditioning stays off at Newsom’s <a href="https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/wearing-a-fleece-jacket-newsom-tells-californians-not-to-use-ac-after-4-pm-to-save-energy-gavin-california-heat-wave-air-conditioning">request</a>. At their children&#8217;s school, the air conditioning <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article315103354.html">doesn’t work or perhaps doesn’t even exist</a>.
Newsom says his opponents do not care about the environment and just want money. He recently <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/03/19/california-is-taking-donald-trump-to-court-for-breaking-the-law-to-put-polluter-profits-before-american-lives/">accused</a> President Trump of “making deadly pollution great again.” Yet, of course, Newsom has <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3798720/california-great-place-to-do-business-newsom-donors/">no corporate interests</a>, and he simply wants the best for everyone. Sure.
If Newsom were to become president, he would do much of what he has already done in the Golden State: use his <a href="https://apnews.com/article/gavin-newsom-california-governor-president-2028-moderate-7dfb281af0674e8b09304de94a6a8868">facade of moderation</a> to foist <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/gavin-newsom-record-democrat-california/685423/">radical agendas</a> on the public. Under Newsom’s tenure, each aspect of Californians’ lives has been put under a microscope — micromanaged, then mismanaged. The results plainly speak for themselves. Rampant crime, the skyrocketing cost of living, and resource mismanagement plague the Golden State. Even liberal Californians are <a href="https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-voters-fleeing-california-turn-other-states-blue/">leaving</a> in droves to escape Newsom’s vision — the same vision he has for governing America.
Newsom wants to turn California&#8217;s environmental policy laboratory into a national experiment. The experiment has failed, yet Newsom is not reconsidering his hypothesis. Instead, he wants to make the United States his new lab rat.
* * *
Sydney Rodman is a visiting fellow with Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation.

Networth And Chill With Guest Governor Gavin Newsom Featured Session – 2026 SXSW Conference And Festival

America Is Next For Newsom’s Failing Policy Experiments

Newsom’s Failed Environmental Experiment Could Flunk America

2028 presidential election

California

Democrats

electric vehicles

Gavin Newsom

Opinion

Recent media coverage of rising gas prices reflects something more consequential than concern for energy affordability. It reveals a pattern of selective outrage and one meant to condition the American public to view any temporary cost associated with national security as politically unacceptable — especially under a Republican administration. This dynamic carries strategic consequences. It erodes trust, weakens institutional resilience, and reduces our country’s capacity to absorb short-term strain in pursuit of long-term stability.
During the Biden administration, gasoline prices <a href="https://www.wbur.org/npr/1084893419/gas-prices-surge-to-above-4-a-gallon-oil-russia-ukraine-antony-blinken">reached</a> historic and unsustainable levels, surpassing $5.00 per gallon in many parts of the country as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted global energy markets. The media’s coverage at the time was extensive, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/us/politics/fact-check-republicans-biden-gas.html">but they refused to blame then-President Biden</a> for foolishly tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in November 2021 ahead of the war. The dominant narrative emphasized structural forces, including global commodity markets, supply chain disruptions, and post-pandemic demand recovery outpacing supply. It was the former president’s climate policies, however, that inevitably invited energy insecurity.
Those explanations reflected the realities of energy economics. Energy markets respond to geopolitical shocks, and price volatility often follows disruptions to supply and transportation infrastructure. Public messaging from legacy media during that period <a href="https://time.com/6188569/gas-prices-oil/">emphasized patience while markets stabilized</a>.
Current coverage reflects a very different emphasis: It’s panicked, grim, and chaotic. The narrative is intended to guilt developed nations into <a href="https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-wars-renewable-energy-asia-4b5fe0693ce5816472c905db85f7da6e">abandoning</a> “warmongering” oil and gas for “<a href="https://time.com/7358460/renewable-energy-peace-democracy-venezuela/">peaceful</a>” renewable energy to fight a so-called climate crisis, despite much of the world now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/magazine/climate-politics-us-world-paris-agreement.html">prioritizing</a> energy security. The United Nations claims wind and solar energy, unlike oil and gas, will withstand closures in the Strait of Hormuz. Much to the UN’s chagrin, energy-importing nations that have adopted 100% renewable energy targets are planning to purchase <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-19/after-qatar-lng-plant-outage-more-buyers-turn-to-us-suppliers">American liquefied natural gas (LNG)</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/business/iran-war-lng-asia-japan.html">pivot back to coal</a> after Qatar’s LNG terminal closed down.
Price volatility is frequently presented as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/us/politics/gas-prices-republicans-affordability.html">evidence of policy failure</a> rather than as a predictable consequence of geopolitical risk. Rather than putting the temporary economic pressure as something that deserves perspective and patience, it is portrayed as a political liability that must be eliminated immediately. This framing amplifies anxiety while obscuring the strategic rationale behind national security decisions and the long-term expectation that energy prices will soon come back down. This isn’t 2022, with an administration that deliberately suppressed domestic energy production. The landscape is vastly different, and arguably more secure, with American energy dominance keeping prices relatively low here at home and coming to the rescue abroad.
That shift in emphasis by the media shapes public perception over time.
Research on public opinion during military operations <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00602.x">demonstrates</a> public support for national security decisions tracks the signals sent by major institutions.
Coverage that focuses primarily on risk, cost, and disruption encourages the public to conclude that action lacks justification. A sustained emphasis on negative consequences and downplaying the purpose and potential upsides contributes to declining confidence in leadership and reduced tolerance for continued engagement.
Over the long term, the media framing weakens our country and the public. A society that interprets every economic disruption as a disaster and evidence of fundamental failure becomes less willing to endure temporary hardship even when the alternative carries greater long-term risk and expense.
Trust declines gradually through accumulated inconsistency.
This erosion of trust carries implications beyond the current moment. A public conditioned to associate short-term economic disruption with failure will resist future decisions that require temporary sacrifice, regardless of the strategic stakes involved.
Public uncertainty about the necessity of current operations reflects an imbalance in how the rationale has been reinforced in public discourse. Policymakers have articulated the objective of degrading the capabilities of a regime that was developing advanced ballistic missile capabilities <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-fires-missiles-remote-uk-us-base-claiming-long-range-capabilities-rcna264547">able to reach long distances</a>, unfettered <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/05/21/9-myths-about-irans-uranium-enrichment-program/?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23305160353&amp;gbraid=0AAAAADHXS9VYjLIExrfvz9Me63UlMpO7a&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwyYPOBhBxEiwAgpT8P611Ekse1TESk6d_oEGyl9DdHc8HDPOTawrLNLyStN8M33Drkse33BoCfyAQAvD_BwE">nuclear ambitions</a>, arms proxy forces <a href="https://www.cfr.org/articles/irans-regional-armed-network">across multiple theaters</a>, and uses <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-chokes-strait-hormuz-reported-2m-tanker-toll-regime-threatens-global-oil-supply">instability</a> to influence global energy markets.
The strategic logic rests on deterrence. Restoring deterrence imposes short-term costs but reduces the likelihood of sustained instability and higher long-term economic disruption – specifically global energy prices.
Coverage that concentrates on immediate economic consequences without sustained attention to strategic necessity leaves the public with incomplete information. That informational gap encourages apprehension and weakens support for popular actions that serve long-term security interests.
The United States has historically maintained security and prosperity by accepting temporary hardship when the stakes were explained clearly and consistently. Wartime rationing, economic sanctions, and military mobilization all required short-term sacrifice in service of larger objectives.
Public resilience depends on coherent communication from institutions and a shared understanding of the relationship between cost and purpose. That resilience weakens when the information environment frames disruption as avoidable and treats temporary hardship as evidence of failure.
Leadership requires the willingness to act despite short-term discomfort and to explain the reasons for that action clearly. Public resilience requires the willingness to endure temporary strain when the strategic rationale is understood.
Americans facing higher gas prices deserve transparency for what they are being asked to pay and the strategic purpose behind this ask from the media without bias. Clear explanation strengthens trust, supports resilience, and preserves the capacity to act decisively when national security requires it.
* * *
Meaghan Mobbs is director of Independent Women’s Center for American Safety and Security.
Gabriella Hoffman is director of Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation.

California Gas Prices

Two Hits At The Pump — And What The Media Wants You To Forget

Affordable

Climate Change

Coal

Joe Biden

Oil and Gas

Solar Power

Cuba said it had begun efforts early on Sunday to restore power after its grid collapsed for the second time in a week amid a U.S. oil blockade that has dealt a major blow to the island&#8217;s already ailing energy infrastructure.
The grid collapsed Saturday evening at 6:32 p.m. (2232 GMT) after a major power plant in Nuevitas, in eastern Cuba&#8217;s Camaguey province, failed and went offline, grid operator UNE said, causing a cascade effect that knocked out power to the nation&#8217;s approximately 10 million people.
Cuba&#8217;s energy and mines ministry said early on Sunday it had established microsystems &#8211; smaller, closed circuits &#8211; in all of the island&#8217;s provinces to restore power for vital services like hospitals, water supply and food distribution.
The country&#8217;s two gas-fired power plants, operated by Energas, were running in Varadero and Boca de Jaruco, and electricity had reached the nearby Santa Cruz oil-fired plant, the energy ministry said on social media.
Shortly after sunrise on Sunday, the streets of the capital Havana were crowded with early risers sitting on doorsteps, lamenting the situation with neighbors and swatting mosquitoes in cool weather under clear skies.
&#8220;Life doesn&#8217;t change. We&#8217;re stuck in the same rut,&#8221; said Havana resident Leoni Alberto, who said he was forced to cook with firewood at least twice a week due to the outages. &#8220;It&#8217;s absolute madness. There&#8217;s no other way around it.&#8221;
Cellular service and internet was almost entirely unavailable in most areas, leaving many without communication of any kind.
Cuban prime minister Manuel Marrero said the recovery effort was taking place under &#8220;very complex circumstances.&#8221;
Cuba&#8217;s electrical grid has been teetering on the edge of collapse and unreliable for months, leaving the island&#8217;s residents in the dark for hours a day, and sometimes longer, even in better times.
But Saturday&#8217;s blackout incident marks the third major power outage this month, as a majority of the system went down on March 4 when a key thermoelectric generating plant failed. The power grid also went completely offline on Monday for unexplained reasons.
Cuba has experienced a series of total outages in recent years, but two nationwide blackouts in the space of a week is exceptional.
U.S. President Donald Trump began taking measures to block oil from reaching the Caribbean island after Washington deposed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Venezuela had previously provided oil to its close ally on favorable terms.
Since then, Trump has cut off Venezuelan exports to Cuba and threatened other countries with punitive tariffs if they sell oil to the island.
Cuba has long blamed the U.S. trade embargo for economic failures including its obsolete power grid, while Washington has attributed the shortfalls to Cuba&#8217;s Soviet-style command economy.
(Reporting by Dave Sherwood in Havana; additional reporting by Anett Rios and Alien Fernandez, Editing by Hugh Lawson)

Cuba

Cuba Begins Recovery Efforts After Second Grid Collapse In A Week

Global Politics

Venezuela

World

Battered by COVID-era inflation, many Americans are understandably concerned about the impact of another war on their finances – but data suggests American bank accounts won&#8217;t become casualties.  
Energy affects the price of everything, and missiles are flying in a region that produces a third of global oil exports. If supply is constrained, prices will increase, but the current global supply is better positioned than in the past. 
Global inventories are currently around 6.5 billion barrels of oil, the highest level this decade. The world consumes only 1.57% of that total each day. Middle Eastern oil production is at one of its low points. During the 1970s energy crisis, the region produced about 55% of the world’s oil. Today, the share is 35%.
In <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-united-states-is-the-worlds-largest-oil-producer">2018</a>, the United States became the world’s largest oil producer, dethroning Russia and Saudi Arabia thanks to the shale revolution of the late 2000s. The revolution was driven by a technological advancement that combined fracking and horizontal drilling, allowing the US to unlock oil that was previously unreachable. 
The Daily Wire reviewed data from a leading Wall Street bank that concluded the high inventory and increased oil production from the United States would help offset costs from elevated oil prices. In an analysis of 21 previous air strikes in the region, the bank found that there was typically an initial spike in oil prices that subsided over the following two months. 
So far, markets are tracking that historical pattern. This month, Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) are up roughly <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BZ=F/">15%</a> in the days following Saturday’s strikes. The bank concluded a sustained increase in oil prices would raise headline inflation by 0.2%, a drop in the bucket compared to what consumers experienced from 2022 to 2024. 
The bank also predicts that GDP growth will drop by less than a tenth of a percent for the year. Experts attribute the Fall government shutdown to a 0.06 to 0.12 percentage-point loss in GDP. 
Beyond oil, the bank&#8217;s data also showed promising expectations for the broader market. After eight weeks, gold, the U.S. dollar, and 10-year Treasury bonds posted gains in most instances, and U.S. equities were higher in 20 of the 21 cases. Despite initial declines from the strikes, US large-cap equities are still hovering around all-time highs with earnings beating analyst expectations for the fourth quarter by 6% and high expectations for 2026.  
Even JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon, Wall Street&#8217;s designated worrier, is expressing calm: “The economy is not often driven by something like that unless it is prolonged.” 
What Dimon did warn about back in 2022, however, was cumulative inflation. &#8220;Inflation is eroding everything I just said,” <a href="http://said">said </a>Dimon. “When you’re looking out forward, those things may very well derail the economy and cause a mild or hard recession that people worry about.”
A sustained conflict could alter the outlook, though. A fifth of global oil and LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and analysts predict triple-digit oil prices if Gulf production halts. Trump has floated the idea of using the US Navy to accompany ships traveling through the strait to mitigate that risk.
Dr. Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the free-market think tank Pacific Research Institute, echoed a measured view in comments to The Daily Wire.
&#8220;If prices stay around $80 a barrel and supplies don&#8217;t get more constrained, over the next two months it could be painful but it would not be a barnburner. However, the severe effect would be prices going up to $90 a barrel and they stay there for a year.&#8221;
Winegarden explained that a significant loss of Gulf production would force more countries back into the global market for supply, driving prices higher. However, he added that higher prices would also incentivize producers elsewhere to ramp up output, increasing supply over time and helping stabilize the market.

Should Your Wallet Panic Over The Iran War? What History Shows

Economy

Inflation

Iran

Global oil prices spiked on Monday as the United States and Israel continued a joint military operation targeting Iran&#8217;s military infrastructure.
Global benchmark Brent crude oil <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/brn00?countrycode=uk&amp;gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqe4k1-WtbbEc0_rDe9RmjIzBeQ_NbvsmIuohb4DQSo55Be0bfuc1Ez2yJhY6Pc%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69a5b024&amp;gaa_sig=kegHiaf_xsPW94kPXb2xUx2YgsMT9F6cMvHsnXelmzUTlyMm_8GalBG_mAiBT6m4gV0Q7YYn6j8miOFnbJ_EGA%3D%3D">jumped</a> from Friday&#8217;s close of $73.21 per barrel to more than $80 at one point before settling around $78.46, a gain of more than 7%. The prices could jump even more if maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues to be disrupted. Every day, about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait, according to Bloomberg. 
Citigroup analysts <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-prices-could-rise-further-075821138.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAoLAnlJSGqDKV19nUMQVFUjg_rb1vbJFDoZPVJc39rwlciwX3Fz7sGJq7a-EYDBNtF52AuMGdG8afsugkS4XehHbbJuiDYm3OsVaFR-vWX1KJMSgAEaTnttSdVSAv9m5b74evywcd3KoDlT5Hm5G_ki9I9WT8LqGZBg6RtFXBuK">said</a> there was about a 20% chance that oil could jump to $120 a barrel if the war escalates and maritime flows are significantly disrupted. 
The United States Maritime Administration issued a warning Saturday advising ships to stay clear of the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman. 
“It is recommended that vessels keep clear of this area if possible. Any U.S.-flagged, owned, or crewed commercial vessels that are operating in these areas should maintain a standoff of 30 nautical miles from U.S. military vessels to reduce the risk of being mistaken as a threat,” the administration said. 
Multiple oil tankers in the region have been damaged since fighting began, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/three-tankers-damaged-gulf-us-iran-conflict-escalates-2026-03-01/">reported</a>. 
Oil producers in the region have also shut down operations amid strikes from Iran. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco <a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-israel-us-strikes-2026/card/saudi-oil-refinery-halts-operations-after-drone-attack-rBCZJgEmRa2hhV4xKb9o?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqdVA7f01FpRHiDTdvKgQyx298PC0SvI-4yLSfvTx2dsJpziEKt5CUhuoP23pC0%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69a5ae00&amp;gaa_sig=U6cNYNwbcMKuGRYsPJYChw_TORGN6R2j6JBRYfrSFheMLHiz9T6f9VXmJitWw8PiBP5jzFBQYWzuRCSyN3_Y9g%3D%3D">shut down</a> its Ras Tanura refinery as a precautionary measure after one of its storage facilities was reportedly struck by an Iranian drone. The facility produces around 550,000 barrels of oil per day.
Other producers in the Iraqi-Kurdistan region have also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-aramco-shuts-ras-tanura-refinery-after-drone-strike-source-says-2026-03-02/">paused</a> production for precautionary purposes. 
QatarEnergy announced that it was pausing production amid attacks on its facilities. QatarEnergy is the world&#8217;s largest liquefied natural-gas producer. That announcement came after a strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex, where it processes natural gas. European natural gas prices jumped by as much as 50% following the announcement.
It remains unclear how long the U.S.-Israel operation will continue, though President Donald Trump has said it could go on for weeks.

Gas Stations As Oil Jumps Most In Four Years As Markets React to Conflict In Iran

The Impact Of Operation Epic Fury On Oil And Beyond The Battlefield

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-colorado-dispute-over-climate-change/">announced</a> Monday that it will take up a major climate change lawsuit targeting the energy industry — a case that could determine the future of similar lawsuits filed by left-wing states and municipalities across the country.
The Court agreed to review Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. They granted the hearing after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder County’s state-law claims to proceed, rejecting arguments from energy producers that the lawsuit is preempted by federal law. 
The decision comes amid a wave of nearly three dozen lawsuits brought by leftist jurisdictions seeking to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for alleged climate change damages.
Boulder County’s lawsuit accuses energy companies of knowingly contributing to climate change and claims the resulting environmental effects have caused millions of dollars in damage to local property and residents. Energy producers have countered that such claims attempt to regulate interstate and global emissions through state tort law, an approach they argue is incompatible with the Constitution and federal environmental statutes.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s intervention signals concern about allowing state courts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-lawfare-is-the-latest-frontier-for-the-lefts-antidemocratic-attacks-report-says">set</a> national energy and climate policy.
Christopher Mills, a constitutional attorney and former law clerk to Clarence Thomas, said the Court is correctly recognizing the national stakes involved. “The Court&#8217;s action shows that it rightly recognizes that this is a national issue in need of an immediate national resolution,” Mills <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8d590b75-5787-4f63-8784-8a722960477b.html">said</a>. “Letting these copycat lawsuits fester in state courts across the country is a recipe for uncertainty, undermining American energy production and harming consumers.”
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, described the case as a test of whether local governments can effectively impose national policy through litigation. “For years, trial lawyers and left-wing municipalities have used state law as a backdoor to impose their preferred energy policies on the entire country — without a vote, without Congress, and without accountability,” Zywicki said, adding that the Constitution does not permit such an end run around federal authority.
Former Bush administration official John Shu emphasized that greenhouse gas emissions, by definition, do not respect state borders, placing them squarely within Congress’s regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act.
Boulder County, for its part, argued that Supreme Court review is premature because the case has not reached a final judgment. The justices nevertheless agreed to hear the dispute and directed the parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the case at this stage. 
The incentive for Boulder to resist Supreme Court review right now is that State and local governments have generally had more success keeping these climate lawsuits alive in friendly state courts, where judges have been willing to treat them as traditional nuisance or consumer-protection cases. Once the Supreme Court weighs in, especially on the federal preemption question, a ruling against Boulder could wipe out not just this case but dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide in one stroke.
Oral arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely in 2026, and one that could determine whether state courts may continue serving as battlegrounds for national climate policy or whether such questions must remain with Congress.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions

How The Left-Wing Climate Crusade May Be Nearing Its Breaking Point

Supreme Court Takes Up Case To Determine If States Can Sue Energy Companies Over Climate Change

Colorado

SCOTUS

President Donald Trump on Wednesday directed the Department of War to purchase electricity generated from coal plants, saying the move was necessary for national security and “American energy dominance.” 
“We&#8217;re going to be buying a lot of coal through the military now, and it&#8217;s going to be less expensive and actually much more effective than what we have been using for many, many years,” Trump said at a White House event Wednesday afternoon. &#8220;And again, with the environmental progress that&#8217;s been made on coal, it&#8217;s going to be just as clean.&#8221; 
Trump made the remarks before signing an executive order titled &#8220;Strengthening United States National Defense with America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Power Generation Fleet.” 
“The United States must ensure that our electric grid — upon which military installations, operations, and defense-industrial production depend — remains resilient and reliable, and not reliant on intermittent energy sources,” the executive order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/strengthening-united-states-national-defense-with-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-power-generation-fleet/">said</a>. “Given our Nation’s vast coal resources and the proven reliability of our coal-fired generation fleet in providing continuous, on-demand baseload power, it is imperative that the Department of War (DOW) prioritize the preservation and strategic utilization of coal-based energy assets.”
The order directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Energy Secretary Chris Wright to approve power purchase agreements with coal-fired energy production facilities for War Department installations or other federal facilities. It states that priority should be given to projects that strengthen grid reliability, prevent blackouts, and enhance on-site fuel security.
According to the Energy Information Administration’s <a href="https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/">2024 coal report</a>, coal production in the United States fell 11.3% from 2023 to 2024, while the number of operating coal mines declined from 560 to 524. Over the same period, American coal consumption dropped 3.5%. 
Since returning to office, Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/end-the-government-bias-against-coal-trump-signs-order-to-bolster-floundering-american-industry">has taken</a> several steps to boost domestic coal production and use. He has signed executive orders designating coal as a critical mineral, expanding mining on federal lands, and repealing Biden administration regulations on coal-fired power plants. 
At the White House executive order signing on Wednesday, Trump was presented with the &#8220;Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal” award by Peabody Energy executive Jim Grech.

Trump Orders Pentagon To Buy Coal Power In Boost To Industry

Why Trump’s Energy Power Play Could Boost America’s National Security Edge

Trump Directs Military To Buy Coal To Bolster National Security And 'American Energy Dominance'

Department of Energy

Department of War

Donald Trump

Executive

Executive Orders

National Security

Politics

Germany-headquartered Siemens Energy announced on Tuesday a $1 billion investment to strengthen the United States’ power infrastructure. The company is set to expand its manufacturing capabilities in the United States, signaling confidence in America as a hub for energy innovation. 
Approximately <a href="https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/press-releases/siemens-energy-is-investing--1-billion-and-creating-highly-skill.html">one-fourth</a> of the United States’ power generation relies on Siemens Energy technology. With rising demand fueled in part by the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, the company is ramping up production and facilities across nine sites in Mississippi, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, New York, and Texas over the next two years. The investment is expected to create 1,500 highly skilled manufacturing jobs. 
Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch credited the Trump Administration for creating “once-in-a-generation growth opportunity” for the resurgence of United States manufacturing and the expansion of artificial intelligence. He noted the administration’s energy policies “supercharged the energy demand which is supporting new investments across the energy sector.” 
Funding from the investment will support a range of projects, including high-voltage switchgear to build out energy grid components in Mississippi, power transformers and gas turbines in North Carolina, gas turbines in Florida, copper production in Alabama, and upgraded facilities in New York and Texas. The move aligns with President Trump’s tariff policies, which incentivize domestic manufacturing.
“This tremendous investment in a critical part of our power grid supply chain underscores President Trump’s success in expanding supply chain access and bringing major manufacturing back to America,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “We appreciate great partners like Siemens Energy, who proactively partner with the Trump administration for the benefit of the American people, prioritizing critical components to make the United States Energy Dominant.” 
Burgum, who chairs the National Energy Dominance Council, worked with Siemens Energy to help bring the investment to fruition. 
Siemens Energy highlighted its deep roots in the United States, dating back to the 1880s, when the company supported early electrification projects, and says it now wants to meet energy demands driven by artificial intelligence. The Trump Administration has put a heavy emphasis on winning the AI race through initiatives like Project Vault, which creates a strategic reserve of critical minerals essential for AI chips, and by taking stakes in companies to secure domestic supply chains for semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and nuclear energy. For Siemens Energy, the investment nods both to its long-standing commitment to the United States and a signal of confidence in the country’s energy and technological future.

World Premiere Of Amazon MGM’s “Melania”

Trump’s Energy Policy Just Fueled A $1B Investment In American Power And Jobs

Trump’s Energy Priorities Help Attract $1 Billion Siemens Energy Investment To United States

Doug Burgum

Siemens

President Trump did something extraordinary in Davos. He gave a speech targeting our European allies, telling them that they need to up their game in terms of defense, economics, and their own national sovereignty.
Then he pried a deal away from Denmark with regard to Greenland.
The markets were very concerned about the possibility that President Trump was going to hit all of Europe with these gigantic tariffs based on a desire for sovereignty over all of Greenland.
But that is no longer the case. A deal has been cut.
The really big story here is how the President of the United States is calling on Europe to stand up for itself.
The president said that his goal in saying all of this wasn&#8217;t just to dunk on the Europeans. Obviously, his goal was to revitalize what he called a “precious” culture, shared by Americans and Europeans.
“The explosion of prosperity and conclusion and progress that built the West did not come from our tax cuts,” he stated. “It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common. We share it. But we have to keep it strong. We have to become stronger, more successful, and more prosperous than ever. We have to defend that culture and rediscover the spirit that lifted the West from the depths of the Dark Ages to the pinnacle of human achievement.”
He also suggested that Europeans have failed themselves in pursuing a green energy-based economy.
When the man&#8217;s right, the man is right.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
The real message the president was there to deliver is that the Europeans ought to be both independent, but also recognize that they are reliant on the United States.
In that vein, he went after Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada. Carney gave a peculiar address with regard to the United States in which he suggested that the era of American dominance was over. And Trump basically said, well, that&#8217;s weird, since if it weren&#8217;t for us, your continent would be a little bit more at risk. We are your defensive shield. We&#8217;re building a golden dome that just by its very nature is going to be defending Canada.
“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way,” Trump said. “They should be grateful also, but they&#8217;re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn&#8217;t so grateful. They should be grateful that Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
The president also articulated the favorite line of those of us on the Right, which is that if it had not been for the United States’ involvement in Europe, everyone would be speaking German and Japanese.
“The problem with them, though, is that we&#8217;ll be there for them 100%,” he said. “But I&#8217;m not sure that they&#8217;d be there for us if we gave them the call.”
You can see why the Europeans are feeling a bit peevish right now.
We&#8217;ll have to see how they react to everything that&#8217;s going on. Are we again entering a period of a multipolar world order, or is the president just flexing American muscles a little bit more than usual in an attempt to get everybody back on the same pro-America, pro-Western page? That remains a bit of an open question.
All of this ties into what the broader American orientation is toward the world. Is it America First, or is it America Alone? Is it a multipolar world order, or is it an American-led world order where we are more muscular in pursuit of our own interests, and we expect more from our allies in helping us out with those interests?
That remains the big question coming out of Davos. It was the big question going in.
I&#8217;m not sure that the question has been fully answered at this point in time.

U.S. President Trump Attends World Economic Forum In Davos

Trump’s Davos Doctrine: A Muscular Reassertion Of The West

Trump's Davos Doctrine: A Muscular Reassertion Of The West

Davos

Europe

European Union

Switzerland

Europe’s weakness is no longer just Europe’s problem; it is the West’s crisis. For decades, the continent has drifted into complacency, retreating from free markets, hollowing out its militaries, and outsourcing its security to Washington. What began as integration hardened into dependency. The result is a Europe that is economically stagnant, strategically vulnerable, and increasingly unsure of its own identity.
President Trump’s recently released National Security Strategy and the National Defense Authorization Act are the first major American documents in a generation that speak to Europe not as a ward, but as an adult. They state, in effect, that the West cannot survive if its largest democratic bloc insists on remaining structurally weak. America will not abandon Europe, but it will no longer indulge Europe’s illusions. The ball is now in Europe’s court.
Trump’s statecraft is often misdescribed as improvisation. In reality, a Trump Doctrine of strategic sovereignty has emerged. Its core is simple: no nation is entitled to protection from the United States unless it actively contributes to collective security; coalitions are built on shared interests and values, not on inertia; and the West is worth preserving. Once the United States and Europe shared these beliefs, and their alliance was strong on this basis.
This abandons the fantasy of a self-enforcing “rules-based order.” Russia’s attack on Georgia or Ukraine, and other similar powers’ attacks on other weaker countries, have repeatedly shown that there is no universally accepted rules-based order. The simple, stubborn fact is that order is made and maintained by sovereign states that possess power, will, and clarity of purpose. Trump’s approach replaces the old habit of open-ended guarantees with a “balance of sovereigns”: the United States will remain the preeminent Western power, but its allies must become genuine pillars, not permanent dependents, to keep the balance of power in the West and keep at bay geopolitical adversaries that understand solely strength.
Trump has already done more to weaken the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis than his predecessor. Trump’s pressure on Moscow has been more consequential than Joe Biden’s. By pushing NATO allies to raise defense spending, by imposing secondary measures that hit Russian oil revenues, and by brokering peace in the Caucasus, Trump has constrained Russia’s maneuvering space.
Iran, once emboldened by Western appeasement, is now reeling. Israeli and American strikes have gutted its nuclear and military infrastructure. Combined with the Abraham Accords and the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, the Middle East has been reshaped in ways that keep Russia out and leave Tehran increasingly isolated. Iran’s proxies are weakened, its economy strangled, and its strategic depth reduced.
The updated Monroe Doctrine has likewise kept China out of the Western Hemisphere. Beijing’s attempts to buy strategic assets and political influence in Latin America have been blocked or rolled back, while Venezuela’s dictator is now under arrest, with his regime destabilized. Trump’s declarations about the Panama Canal and Greenland should be seen as part of this larger doctrine.
Taken together, these moves have fractured the “unholy alliance” of America’s adversaries. Europe should take note: Trump has shown that strength and clarity can weaken adversaries far more effectively than platitudes and half-measures. The United States is doing its part to reshape the global balance. The question is whether Europe will do its part to reshape itself.
Security begins with production. Europe’s retreat from free-market dynamism has hollowed out its competitiveness. While Trump has pursued reindustrialization, deregulation, near-shoring, and energy abundance in the United States, Europe has doubled down on regulatory maximalism and green utopianism — policies that have driven factories, capital, and talent elsewhere.
A continent that once powered the Industrial Revolution now tries to regulate its way into relevance. High taxes, rigid labor markets, and hostility to conventional and nuclear energy have produced dependence on Russian gas, Chinese supply chains, and American defense spending. There is no single European entity in the top 10 biggest companies, startups, or AI firms, because the European instinct has become “regulate before even creating”. 
Real recovery will not come from new Brussels programs, but from unleashing the energy and initiative of millions of individuals and families who are now trapped under layers of taxation, bureaucracy, and paternalism. Europe does not lack talent; it lacks permission to use it.
Trump’s doctrine treats Europe’s stagnation not as an internal matter, but as a strategic liability. Economic weakness means underfunded militaries, brittle societies, and a politics increasingly tempted by accommodation with authoritarian suppliers of energy and credit. A Europe that cannot sustain industry will not sustain deterrence.
If Europe wants to be something other than a museum of past greatness, it must rediscover growth: lower and simpler taxes, domestic energy, and a serious commitment to frontier technologies. Otherwise, the center of gravity of the democratic world will keep shifting from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, not by American design but by European default.
Trump’s strategy does something European elites have avoided for years: it links power to identity. It speaks of restoring the West’s “civilizational self-confidence” and calls on the nations of the free world to defend their histories, cultures, and borders.
This is not nostalgia. It is strategic clarity. A society that doubts its right to exist cannot project power. A civilization that treats its past as a moral burden will not endure the costs of defense, child-rearing, or long-term investment.
For too long, influential European institutions have treated national identity as suspect, the family as optional, borders as administrative details, and free speech as a negotiable privilege. The result is fragmentation: uncontrolled migration, parallel societies, and cultural self-censorship. In such a context, phrases like “strategic autonomy” are empty. Autonomy presupposes cohesion. 
Trump’s message is that the West is not an NGO; it is a civilization. The President does not seek American domination of Europe. He seeks equilibrium. America First does not mean America Alone; it means an America strong enough to lead, partnered with European allies strong enough to matter. For Europe, that means three things: (a) Rearmament as an act of self-respect, not of deference to Washington. A Europe that cannot field serious forces from the Baltic to the Mediterranean is not “pacifist”; it is strategically unserious. (b) Reindustrialization and energy realism. A continent that shuts down reliable power without viable alternatives, and that drives industry offshore, will find its foreign policy constrained by whoever keeps its lights on. (c) Civilizational recovery. Europe must stop apologizing for its existence. Its nations, cultures and Judeo-Christian roots are not obstacles to the future; they are the only basis on which a free future can be built.
Trump has laid out a doctrine that treats Europe not as a client but as a potential equal. The question is whether Europe will seize this moment or shrink from it.  The United States has made its choice: strength, sovereignty, and renewed Western leadership. If Europe fails to rise, the West will fall, not because America abandoned it, but because Europe abandoned itself.
* * *
<div id="message-list_1768331045.381339" class="c-virtual_list__item" tabindex="0" role="listitem" aria-labelledby="primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-sender primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-message_text primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-alt_text primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-date_time primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-reaction_count primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-reply_count primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-link_count primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-attachment_count primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-has_draft_reply primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-pinned_state primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-edited_state primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-later_state primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-broadcast_state primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-broadcast_thread_root_message primary-D087VVCBCE5-1768331045.381339-translated_state" aria-setsize="-1" data-qa="virtual-list-item" data-item-key="1768331045.381339">
<div class="c-message_kit__background c-message_kit__background--hovered p-message_pane_message__message c-message_kit__message" role="presentation" data-qa="message_container" data-qa-unprocessed="false" data-qa-placeholder="false" data-msg-ts="1768331045.381339" data-msg-channel-id="D087VVCBCE5">
<div class="c-message_kit__hover c-message_kit__hover--hovered" role="document" aria-roledescription="message" data-qa-hover="true">
<div class="c-message_kit__actions c-message_kit__actions--default">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter__right" role="presentation" data-qa="message_content">
<div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text">
<div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text" data-qa="message-text">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first">
<div class="p-rich_text_block" dir="auto">
<div class="p-rich_text_section">Nikola Kedhi is the Executive Director of the Albanian Conservative Institute and a contributor to various media such as the Daily Wire, Fox News, Newsweek, the Daily Signal, Newsmax, and others. Kedhi is also a co-author of the Constitution of Conservative Values, the official Doctrine of the Democratic Party of Albania. He can be reached on Twitter: @nikedhi95 and on his Substack.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

European Leaders Join Ukrainian President Zelensky For White House Meeting With Trump

President Trump Is Right, The West Cannot Survive On European Weakness

China

Foreign Policy

NATO

President Trump

Russia

White House

The global conversation around artificial intelligence is framed as a technology race.
Yes, America is in an AI race, but that race will be over before it even starts if we do not secure reliable fuel to power it.
From a technical advancement standpoint, the AI race is a challenge of intellect: algorithms, chips, and computing architecture.
From an energy standpoint, however, it is a question of wisdom: Do we have the wisdom to make the right decisions now, to prioritize and properly utilize the abundant, affordable, and reliable energy resources we already possess?
AI runs on massive, continuous amounts of electricity. The nations that can deliver power at scale, at the lowest cost, and with the highest reliability will lead not only in AI, but in manufacturing, economic growth, and national security.
China understands this reality. In fact, China now generates more than twice as much electricity as the United States and continues to expand power infrastructure at a pace the U.S. has not matched in years.
If America intends to lead in AI, we must prioritize natural gas. It is the only fuel source today that is readily deployable, scalable, reliable, and affordable.
For the first time in more than half a century, U.S. electricity demand is growing at a sustained rate. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S. will need 50 to 150 gigawatts of new electric capacity within the next decade, describing the challenge as the Manhattan Project of our time. 
A single large data center can consume as much power as a heavy industrial facility. Data centers are modern-day industrial factories, operating 24/7 and requiring uninterrupted baseload power.
We must use wisdom when locating these facilities. Power generation can be built almost anywhere, but fuel cannot. Our grandfathers understood this. Steel mills and petrochemical plants were built near power plants, and power plants were built near fuel sources.
When new power demand is located far from the fuel source, costs rise, timelines stretch, and risks multiply. Long-haul transmission adds expense, energy loss, permitting complexity, disruption, and public opposition. Electricity is expensive not only to generate, but to move.
The most efficient solution is also the simplest: build new power demand on top of the fuel supply.
<div id="attachment_1022749" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1022749" class="size-large wp-image-1022749" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-864x576.jpg" alt="The former General Motors and Foxconn factory in Lordstown, Ohio, US, on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. In August, Foxconn announced it had stuck a deal to sell the giant facility to SoftBank, with the two companies planning to start manufacturing data center equipment on the same site where GM cars including the Chevy Impala once came off the assembly line. Photographer: Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
There are two regions in the U.S. that are uniquely equipped. More than 80% of U.S. natural gas production is concentrated in two strategic regions: the Gulf Coast and the Shale Crescent USA (Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania). If these three states were a country, they would be the third-largest natural gas producer in the world, producing roughly one-third of all U.S. natural gas.
Natural gas in the Shale Crescent is among the lowest-cost in the industrialized world, roughly three to four times cheaper than Europe and Asia, and among the lowest-priced in the United States.
For high-load users like data centers, AI infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing, proximity to reliable baseload power is a strategic advantage.
Across the country, data centers are already struggling to secure power. Utilities are issuing moratoria, interconnection queues stretch into the next decade, and grid operators warn that demand is outpacing supply. 

America cannot out-AI China if China out-powers the United States.
The path forward is not mysterious, but it does require political will and wisdom. Natural gas must be treated as a strategic national asset, and the lowest-cost, lowest-risk path forward is to locate new data centers and power-intensive infrastructure directly on top of the fuel supply.
If we make that choice now, we can secure the energy foundation our AI future requires.
* * *
Nathan Lord is the President of Shale Crescent USA, a non-profit organization whose mission is to encourage business growth and create high wage jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Nathan is a graduate of Marietta College and earned his MBA from Liberty University.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu