Some stupid people in the Senate decided to make a spectacle of themselves yesterday when they hosted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to give testimony about Venezuela before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Secretary Rubio is very, very good at his job. And so many of these senators are not.
One of the amazing things about American politics is how many Americans believe there are true conspiracies operating at a high level in American politics. All you have to do is meet our senators and members of Congress in order to know how dumb this is.
Politics is significantly more like “Veep” than it is like “House of Cards.”
Illinois Democrat senator Tammy Duckworth — not one of the sharper tools in the drawer — had a spat with Rubio on whether war needed to be declared in order to perform strikes on drug boats in the Caribbean.
“These non-state actors, who possess state-like capabilities in terms of their weaponry, pose a grave danger to the United States,” Rubio stated. “I don’t think any American would dispute that we have cartels that pose a threat to the United States.”
“You&#8217;re saying that he (President Trump) can invoke this wartime power?” she queried, adding that the wartime power had only been invoked three times: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
“I&#8217;m here to discuss foreign policy and what&#8217;s in the realm of the Department of State,” Rubio replied. “I think your question would be better directed at the Department of Justice. &#8230; You&#8217;re asking me a question about the domestic application of a law that&#8217;s best directed to the Department of Justice.”
“It’s not a complication,” she said, somehow confusing words.
“I can tell you that the United States is most certainly confronting terrorist and criminal organizations operating in our hemisphere that pose a grave danger to the United States. Anyone who believes that gangs that flood our country with fentanyl or cocaine are not threats to the United States, is not living in reality, and certainly does not reflect the opinion of most Americans,” he fired back.
Owned.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2357-new-tape-pretti-s-not-so-nonviolent-ice-protest-past?elementPosition=2&amp;row=5&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><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" /></a>
Then there was Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is just a mockery. Every time you see him, you think to yourself,  “It&#8217;s not possible for him to become more of a cucumber with eyeballs.” And yet there he is, becoming more of a cucumber with eyeballs, straight from the garden.
Van Hollen suggested it was oil executives pushing the change in Venezuela, saying, “ Mr. Secretary, simple yes or no question: Were you with President Trump during any of those conversations he had with people with oil interests in Venezuela about the possibility of deposing Maduro?”
“That&#8217;s not a simple yes or no question, but I can answer quickly,” Rubio responded. “And that is the president always elicits opinions from all sorts of people, including, for example, Chevron has an active license in Venezuela. They operate in Venezuela. They&#8217;ve been doing so even when the sanctions were in place. So of course you would ask Chevron, “What is your opinion of Delcey Rodriguez?” “What is your opinion of their economy and of their prospects?” But the notion that somehow the president authorized this challenge at the urging of oil executives is absurd. That never happened.”
“Mr. Secretary, I&#8217;m asking whether you were with the president?” Van Hollen persisted.
“That never happened. I couldn&#8217;t be with him because it never happened,” Rubio fired back. “The oil executives were not involved whatsoever in any of the planning on this matter.”
Owned.
By the way, Senator Chris Van Hollen, if you&#8217;re going to ask a question you don&#8217;t already know the answer to, you&#8217;re doing it wrong. (That is the first rule of lawyering: Don&#8217;t ask questions for which you don&#8217;t already know the answer.)
Rubio went on to make clear that criminal organizations are endemic to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, saying:
<blockquote>We have a real reality in our region of these trans-national criminal terrorist organizations — that in many cases possess weapons that you ascribe to a nation state, not to a gang — who pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States, but also to the stability of the region. If you walk through the region, what is the primary threat in Colombia? Transnational criminal organizations. What is the threat to Mexico? What is the threat to the Caribbean basin? 
These groups have to be confronted. They have to be confronted forcefully. What&#8217;s the threat in Haiti? The systemic collapse. And that is these criminal gangs that basically control territory and threaten the ability to even form a government there in that regard. So it&#8217;s endemic throughout the region, and it ultimately impacts the United States through mass migration, through drug trafficking and other related criminal organizations. And so we need to have a force posture that can confront that.  </blockquote>
Senator Rand Paul, on the Republican side of the aisle, targeted Rubio over the Venezuela operation, calling it unconstitutional. “If a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?” he asked. 
“I will acknowledge you&#8217;ve been very consistent on all these points the entire career, no matter who&#8217;s in charge. I will point to two things. The first is it&#8217;s hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about 4.5 hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don&#8217;t recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, or wanted with a $50 million bounty —” Rubio began.  
“If it only took four hours to take our president, very short, nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It&#8217;s perfect. Would it be an act of war?” Paul asked. 
“We just don&#8217;t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of a war,” Rubio asserted. 
“But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies. Few casualties. They&#8217;re in and out. Boom. It&#8217;s a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course, it would be an act of war. I&#8217;m probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument, one-way arguments that don&#8217;t rebound, that you can&#8217;t apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments,” Paul contended. 
Here’s why Senator Paul’s argument is bad: Who cares whether Venezuela considers it an act of war? The question is whether, constitutionally, you require a declaration of war in order to do this thing. Is it a war for the United States to perform a law enforcement grab-and-snatch of a person we do not recognize as the legitimate, rightful leader of a country? Do we need to declare war in America?  
Who cares what Venezuelans think about it? I don&#8217;t care what Nigerians think about. I don&#8217;t care what Israelis think about it. I don’t care what anybody thinks about it. We&#8217;re Americans; the American Constitution applies.  
The question that ought to be asked is not whether we would consider it an act of war if somebody did it to us; if we did, we would then have to wait and go through the constitutional mechanisms of declaring war. That&#8217;s what the question is about. It is not whether what we just did to Venezuela is an adversarial action. Of course it&#8217;s an adversarial action. The question is, constitutionally speaking, do you have to declare war in order to do this thing? Not whether in some random Platonic universe this is considered a definitional “act of war.”
That&#8217;s the point Rubio was making: Make the case that the operation constitutes a war under the definition of war in the Constitution, as opposed to a policing action or a law enforcement action.
It&#8217;s a cheap rhetorical trick that Senator Paul used there.
Rubio was asked about Cuba and said the Trump administration would not involve itself in an active regime change in Cuba. They would, of course, love to see the regime fall.
Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz asked, “Will you make a public commitment today to rule out U.S. regime change in Cuba?”
“Regime change?” Rubio answered. “Oh, no. I think we would love to see the regime change. That doesn&#8217;t mean that we&#8217;re going to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There&#8217;s no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime.” 
“But you know what we mean by regime change,” Schatz persisted.  “We don&#8217;t mean I wish someone else were in charge. When we talk about regime change, we&#8217;re talking about using the power of the United States, usually kinetic power, but often other kinds of coercion. I&#8217;m not even saying that that&#8217;s always not in our interests; I&#8217;m just saying, I&#8217;m not asking you whether we would prefer a different kind of government. I&#8217;m asking whether you are trying to precipitate the fall of the current regime.”
“Yeah, but that&#8217;s statutory. The Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. embargo on Cuba, is codified. It was codified in law, and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo,” Rubio pointed out.
Owned.
Senator Tim Kaine, the long-forgotten vice presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton, went after Rubio because Donald Trump supposedly said Iceland and not Greenland in his Davos speech. “We&#8217;re not mad at Iceland. They haven&#8217;t cost us any money. The president just mistook the two countries for each other, correct?” Kaine said.
Rubio then gave a deathless, hilarious reply, with a wink at the recent past: “Yeah, he meant to say Greenland. But I think we&#8217;re all familiar with the presidents who have verbal stumbles. We&#8217;ve had presidents like that before, some made a lot more than this one.”
Owned.
Rubio was also asked about Iran and again pointed out that the people of Iran deserve better than the current leadership:
<blockquote>And the core problem they face, unlike the protests you saw in the past on some other topics, is that they don&#8217;t have a way to address the core complaints of the protesters, which is that their economy’s in collapse. And the reason why there&#8217;s economies and collapse is because they spend all their money and all their resources building weapons and sponsoring terrorist groups around the world, instead of reinvesting it back into their society and as a result, have taken on massive global sanctions, which has isolated their economy and their country.
And so that&#8217;s what the Iranian people are demanding, is that they stop doing that and start caring about them and get these sanctions off of them, and this regime is unwilling to do it. So the core challenges, the protests may have ebbed, but they will spark up again in the future because this regime, unless they are willing to change and or leave, has no way of addressing the legitimate and consistent complaints of the people of Iran who deserve better. </blockquote>
Has there ever been a better Secretary of State?

US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-POLITICS-CONGRESS-RUBIO

The Adult In The Room: Rubio Owns The Senate

Ben Shapiro

Chris Van Hollen

Donald Trump

Marco Rubio

Oil and Gas

Opinion

Rand Paul

U.S. Senate

Venezuela

Michigan&#8217;s leftist Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2026/January/Michigan-Energy-Affordability-Complaint.pdf?rev=5fe0d3cf29174f30a7f4853ef1eb0c22&amp;hash=3242B297D226DCDD835DF7D328490E32">lawsuit</a> on behalf of Michigan residents on Friday, arguing that multiple oil companies violated antitrust laws and conspired to harm the renewable energy and electric vehicle markets.
The lawsuit <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2026/01/23/attorney-general-nessel-files-lawsuit-against-fossil-fuel-defendants">alleges</a> that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the oil industry association, the American Petroleum Institute, acted &#8220;as a cartel&#8221; to go after renewable energy sources and &#8220;restrain the emergence of electric vehicles.&#8221; The alleged conspiracy has caused Michigan residents to &#8220;suffer artificially high home and transportation energy costs,&#8221; according to Nessel.
&#8220;Specifically, by suppressing innovation and investment in renewable energy, EVs, and EV infrastructure, Defendants have artificially reduced the output of electricity as a substitute for gasoline and other energy sources,&#8221; the lawsuit states. &#8220;This restraint not only eliminated competitive pressure that would have lowered prices, but also deprived Michigan consumers of meaningful choice, forcing them to buy primary and transportation energy products at supracompetitive prices and with additional costs in the form of negative externalities.&#8221;
Critics of the EV push have argued the opposite of what Michigan claims in the lawsuit, saying that in recent years, the federal government and some state governments have artificially propped up the EV market in an attempt to encourage Americans to give up gas-powered vehicles.
American automakers, such as Michigan-based Ford and General Motors, have recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ford-delays-production-of-new-electric-vehicles-by-years-as-consumers-sour-on-evs">dialed back</a> their investments in EV production due to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gms-ev-struggles-trigger-mass-layoffs-in-three-states">low demand</a> and high manufacturing costs. Last year, the EV market took a hit when President Donald Trump ended the Biden-era EV tax credit, which encouraged Americans to buy alternatives to gas- and diesel-fueled vehicles.
Nessel&#8217;s lawsuit accuses the oil companies of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, which prohibit monopolies and anti-competitive practices. The state of Michigan is demanding a jury trial.
&#8220;Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone,&#8221; Nessel <a href="https://x.com/dananessel/status/2014782329961509273">said</a>.
The Daily Wire reached out to each of the oil companies accused by Michigan in the lawsuit.
Chevron counsel Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. said that courts have dismissed similar lawsuits in multiple states, adding that Michigan&#8217;s lawsuit &#8220;ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state’s automakers and workers,” The Detroit Free Press <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2026/01/23/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-lawsuit-conspiracy-oil-companies/88298387007/">reported</a>.
Ryan Meyers, general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, added, &#8220;These baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions. We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms.”

Dana Nessel

Michigan Dem AG Sues Oil Companies, Calls Them ‘A Cartel’ That Conspired To Stifle EV Market

Michigan

For those who accuse the Trump administration of expansionist ambitions because of the attack on Venezuela that achieved the extradition of the tyrannical dictator and faux president Nicolás Maduro, it would be instructive to remember who the real expansionist was: Maduro.
Maduro had designs on the <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/essequibo-pressure-cooker-runaway-nationalism-and-maduros-compellence-strategy">Essequibo region</a> — an oil-resource-rich territory in Guyana — which comprises two-thirds of Guyana’s territory. Despite a long-standing status quo, Maduro had laid claim to the region following the discovery of massive offshore oil deposits by an ExxonMobil-led consortium.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Trump&#39;s capture of Maduro is IMPERIALISM! How dare he!&quot;
Maduro tried to annex something like 3/4s of the neighboring country of Guyana just last year because oil was discovered offshore. But please tell me more about the horrors of imperialism <a href="https://t.co/aGSkOscmc9">pic.twitter.com/aGSkOscmc9</a>
&mdash; Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) <a href="https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/2007664156686651397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In 2023, Maduro accused Guyana’s president Irfaan Ali of “hypocrisy and false victimization,” adding, “President Irfaan Ali, enough of lies and of trying to hide the historical truth that weighs on the dispute over the Essequibo territory, whose only means of resolution, as you well know, is the Geneva Agreement of 1966. The steps your government is taking violate international legality and jeopardize peace in the region.”
That was a lie; the 1966 Geneva Agreement <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20561/volume-561-I-8192-English.pdf">stated</a> that if Venezuela and Guyana did not resolve the issue, “they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the secretary-general of the United Nations.”
Guyana did exactly that, as the Voice of America <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-venezuelan-maduro-baselessly-accuses-guyana-s-ali-of-violating-treaty-of-geneva/7290690.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a>.
Maduro’s strategy included referendums and legislative moves aimed at the &#8220;defense&#8221; of Essequibo, which international bodies like the OAS and CARICOM labeled illegal and a &#8220;crime of aggression.&#8221; In addition, Venezuelan naval vessels entered disputed waters near ExxonMobil’s operations.
In response to these expansionist moves, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio <a href="https://www.wsls.com/business/2025/03/27/rubio-visits-guyana-as-part-of-his-caribbean-tour-to-promote-energy-independence-and-curb-migration">issued</a> explicit, high-stakes warnings to the Venezuelan &#8220;narco-trafficking regime.&#8221; In March 2025, on a Caribbean tour to strengthen ties and promote energy independence, he stated that aggressive action by Venezuela “would be a very bad day for Venezuela,” emphasizing consequences for “adventurism” and aggression.
Rubio’s strategy included:
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Military Cooperation: Signing security agreements to enhance intelligence sharing and conducting joint naval exercises between the U.S. Navy and Guyana.</li>
<li>Economic Pressure: Implementing severe sanctions and tariffs on countries that imported Venezuelan oil, aiming to dismantle the regime’s financial lifeblood.</li>
<li>Strategic Alliances: Promoting Guyana as a key partner to wean the Caribbean off Venezuelan energy, effectively neutralizing Maduro’s regional influence.</li>
</ul>
Meanwhile, Maduro’s then-vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, maintained that Venezuela would never cede its claim.

Protest In Caracas In Support Of Nicolas Maduro After Being Labelled By The US Government As The Leader Of “Cartel De Los Soles”

Maduro Was The Real Expansionist Threat — Not The Trump Administration

Guyana

Nicolas Maduro

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.

Construction At The First Stargate AI Data Center

America Can’t Win The AI Race If China Wins The Power Race

Artificial Intelligence

China

Energy

Nuclear Power

power grid

Technology

Over a dozen Republican attorneys general warned a leftist climate group that it may be illegally attempting to eliminate fossil fuels from the American economy, according to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire. 
Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, 17 attorneys general sent a letter on Tuesday to the group As You Sow, raising questions about its climate activism. As You Sow is a nonprofit that <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/about-us">works</a> “to change corporations from the inside out” and move the economy away from fossil fuels through shareholder advocacy. 
“As You Sow, a little-known but influential member of the climate cartel, is attempting to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry, which will have a devastating impact on Montanans, especially in the winter when we need fossil fuels to heat our homes,” Knudsen told The Daily Wire. “Their efforts to push their green, woke agenda and box out the fossil-fuel industry appear to be a violation of antitrust and Montana consumer protection laws.”
As You Sow wants to “transition” the economy from being based on “fossil-fuel based energy to clean energy sources” and <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/about-us">wants</a> to “promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy.”
“As You Sow&#8217;s efforts to eliminate fossil fuels and transform the American economy are an assault on American families and businesses. It must stop,” the Republican officials wrote in their <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Ag-Letter-to-As-You-Sow.pdf">letter</a>. “As You Sow demands artificial transformations of entire markets and sectors, inevitably impacting the output and quality of the goods and services produced by those sectors. Moreover, As You Sow seeks change that uniformly aligns with its predetermined policy agenda.”
One of the As You Sow initiatives scrutinized by the Republican officials included its “Invest Your Values” <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/invest-your-values">tool</a>. This tool “analyzes the climate and social impact” of mutual funds and 401(k)s. 
The Invest Your Values tool <a href="https://investyourvalues.org/action-center/faqs">says</a> that some retirement funds should “exclude ESG risky companies” like fossil fuels companies and gun manufacturers while incorporating “a gender-lens investment lens.”
The letter was also signed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 
“As Attorneys General, we have a duty to protect the citizens of our States from unlawful business practices, and we are prepared to enforce antitrust laws if necessary to stop any illegal conduct by As You Sow,” they said. 
The letter also raised questions about the relationship between As You Sow and As You Know, a company that <a href="https://asyouknow.com/our-story/">says</a> it harnesses “the power of shareholders to create lasting change and align investments with values.” As You Sow <a href="https://asyouknow.com/disclaimer/">is</a> the majority shareholder of As You Know and has an exclusive license to the ESG data gathered by As You Sow. 
“If companies do what As You Sow demands, they will score more favorably on As You Know’s benchmarks sold to them and to investors, which in turn influence investments and proxy voting,” the officials wrote in their letter. 
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25&amp;_gl=1*vdwpap*_gcl_au*MTYzODg4ODI4OS4xNzY1ODA4NTE2*_ga*NDM4MjI1MTA1LjE3NTc5NTYzMzI.*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NjY0MTUwMTMkbzM0OSRnMSR0MTc2NjQxNTAxNiRqNTkkbDAkaDA." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The letter was supported by Will Hild, the executive director of the group Consumers’ Research. 
“For years, activist organization, As You Sow, has been pressuring companies and organizations to adopt a radical climate agenda that would drive up costs, destroy reliable energy, and make things more expensive for consumers,” Hild told The Daily Wire. “Instead of focusing on things like lower energy costs or strengthening the American economy, As You Sow’s only priority is to reshape the energy sector to meet senseless net-zero benchmarks.”

House Homeland Security Committee

Republican Officials Warn Climate Group To Stop Its ‘Assault’ On American Economy

Republican Officials Warn Climate Group To Stop Its 'Assault' On American Economy

Climate Change

Economy

Montana

Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman ripped the legacy media and strongly defended the Trump administration over its actions vis-à-vis Venezuela, including strikes on suspected narco-terrorist boats and seizing an oil tanker used by Nicolás Maduro&#8217;s regime.
Last week, the United States seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, targeting Venezuela’s state-owned oil industry and primary source of funding. Since September, the U.S. military has also knocked out over 20 boats and submarines in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean in strikes targeting narco-terrorists.
NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?time_continue=218&amp;v=7jyKTMeZDQg&amp;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.dailywire.com%2F&amp;source_ve_path=MjM4NTE">asked</a> Fetterman about a briefing he had attended about the situation, saying, “What did you learn, Senator, that gave you any comfort that we’re not heading into some kind of extended military exercise around Venezuela or in Venezuela?&#8221;
“I thought it was pretty comprehensive,” Fetterman replied. He then criticized the media for attacking the Trump administration on the issue.
&#8220;And this idea, some things out in the media, it’s kind of putting out this — that the military’s just picking off any boat that comes across. That’s just not true,&#8221; Fetterman said. &#8220;I mean, there’s extensive intelligence and they know exactly who’s on that boat and they know what’s actually on that boat right now. And it’s quite frequently they decline to take it into (a) move on those things. When they move on those kinetic kinds of strikes, you know, they have absolute confidence who’s on it and what’s on it, and that’s exactly what it’s about. They are not just going around randomly shooting boats and those things. That’s just not the fact.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Cuomo brought up President Donald Trump’s statement in which he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-orders-complete-blockade-of-sanctioned-oil-tankers-moving-in-and-out-of-venezuela?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Jennie+Taer&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Trump+Orders+%E2%80%98Complete+Blockade%E2%80%99+Of+Sanctioned+Oil+Tankers+Moving+In+And+Out+Of+Venezuela">ordered</a> a &#8220;complete blockade&#8221; of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela and accused the Maduro regime of stealing oil and land.
“What did they steal?” Cuomo asked Fetterman.
“Iran is involved on that and Russia is involved on that and China as well, too,” the senator responded. “That’s sanctioned oil right now &#8230; and those are the kinds of funds that support regimes like Iran’s. It’s not a plan like a land war and invade Venezuela, but seizing those kinds of oil tankers &#8230; it’s undeniable that that’s gonna support Iran &#8230; those are the kinds of fund that are going to be used for illicit things like terrorism. So for me, it makes a lot of sense, at least what I’ve seen.”
Tim Pearce contributed to this article.

Sen. John Fetterman Visits “Jesse Watters Primetime”

Fetterman Blasts Media, Defends Trump’s Narco-Terror Strikes And Oil Tanker Seizure

Iran

John Fetterman

Trump Administration

In a Republic, lasting progress depends on the art of persuasion. To shape policy, politicians and activists must first convince the public that their ideas work. Yet with increasingly radical tactics — from <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/monkeywrenching-vandals-are-reinventing-climate-activism/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">vandalizing infrastructure</a> to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/arts/design/vandalizing-art-protests.html">defacing priceless works of art</a> — and open dismissal of the affordability challenges many Americans face, it’s little wonder the environmental movement has struggled to win hearts and minds.
Faced with soaring energy costs, a <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-clean-energy-transitions-voter-problem/">2024 YouGov poll</a> found that 73% of voters ranked the price and availability of energy as their top concern. Rather than confronting this reality, radical environmental activists have abandoned persuasion in favor of reckless, unfounded lawsuits against American energy companies, actions that threaten not only our energy security but the very principles of fairness and accountability that our democracy depends on.
The trend is best illustrated by Greenpeace International’s so-called “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/greenpeace-files-suit-against-us-pipeline-company-energy-transfer-2025-02-11/">anti-SLAPP</a>” lawsuit against Energy Transfer, a U.S. pipeline company. Greenpeace filed the case in the Netherlands, even though Energy Transfer has no presence or infrastructure in the European Union, claiming the company tried to silence it through costly litigation in North Dakota. Earlier this year, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation, property damage, and civil conspiracy over its actions during the 2016 and 2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The jury even ordered Greenpeace to pay roughly <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenpeace-energy-transfer-lawsuit-verdict/">$660 million </a>in damages. Instead of accepting that verdict, Greenpeace is now taking the fight overseas in an apparent attempt to escape responsibility — an act of desperation mirrored by recent high-profile <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/10/16/greenpeaces-top-legal-staffers-exit-00611338">resignations</a> from its own legal team. 
Greenpeace is not alone. In September 2024, California’s attorney general and several environmental groups <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/climate/exxon-california-plastics-defamation-lawsuit.html">sued</a> ExxonMobil, accusing the company of contributing to environmental damage from single-use plastics. Yet ExxonMobil doesn’t manufacture single-use plastics and has <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/sustainability/meeting-societys-critical-needs-energy-products/expanding-the-plastics-life-cycle#Ourapproach">invested</a> heavily in recycling innovations to expand the kinds of plastics that can be reused. “Instead of suing us,” an Exxon representative <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-plastics-lawsuit-exxon/">said</a>, “they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills. To date, we’ve processed more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials.” Ignoring such cooperation and the vital role plastics play in healthcare and food safety, activists continue to favor publicity over practical solutions. 
These lawsuits come at a pivotal moment for America’s energy future. The AI revolution promises to drive economic growth and create new opportunities, but data centers powering that revolution demand historic levels of energy. The United States has the resources to meet this challenge, but if energy producers are buried in costly, politically motivated litigation, our ability to keep energy affordable and reliable will be at risk.
For all the rhetoric from environmental activists, it is American energy producers who have delivered the environmental progress that actually improved people’s lives. Affordable and reliable energy helped drive an almost 80% reduction in common air pollutants since the 1970s and made the United States the world leader in access to clean and safe drinking water. When the Safe Drinking Water Act was first implemented, more than one-third of public water systems failed to meet federal standards, as documented in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-04/documents/epa816f04030.pdf">EPA’s historical overview of the Safe Drinking Water Act.</a> Early federal surveys summarized by the <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31243">Congressional Research Service</a> show that roughly 60% of systems were out of compliance in the 1970s. Today, more than 90% of water systems meet EPA’s strictest health-based requirements, according to the agency’s <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31243">National Public Water Systems Compliance Report</a> and reviews by the <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31243">National Academies of Sciences</a>. These gains occurred while American oil and gas production set records. The lesson is simple: prosperity powered by abundant energy produces cleaner air and cleaner water, not political mandates or litigation campaigns.
These hard-won gains are exactly why the current wave of activist lawsuits is so destructive. Instead of building on America’s energy strengths, groups like Greenpeace are working to undermine the very industry that made this environmental progress possible.
When an organization found liable by a jury for defamation and property damage turns around and cries “SLAPP,” it risks undermining the very legal protections meant to safeguard legitimate free speech and activism. If every losing activist can hide behind these claims, true environmental advocacy becomes collateral damage.
Real progress will continue to come from harnessing America’s ingenuity to responsibly produce energy, without sacrificing prosperity, stability, or the rule of law. The path forward isn’t reckless litigation. It’s common sense and energy abundance.
* * *
The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, a trade organization that unapologetically champions free markets and American energy. Previously, he served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25">Christmas Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>

TOPSHOT-DOUNIAMAG-US-environment-THUNBERG

Environmental Activists Abandon Persuasion For Litigation

Court

Environmentalists

ExxonMobil

Greenpeace

Lawsuit

The Netherlands

The Trump administration unveiled a new plan last week to ramp up offshore drilling off the coasts of Alaska, California, and Florida as the president seeks to usher in a U.S. energy boom. But some members of President Donald Trump&#8217;s party, including the Florida governor, aren&#8217;t thrilled about the administration&#8217;s goal to drill for oil near the Sunshine State&#8217;s beaches and military bases.
The U.S. Department of the Interior <a href="https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-launches-expansive-11th-national-offshore-leasing-program-advance-us-energy">directed</a> the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management last Thursday to open up seven additional lease areas in the Eastern Gulf for offshore drilling, an area in the Gulf of America around 100 miles off of Florida&#8217;s coast. The Trump administration also plans to open up 21 areas for lease off the coast of Alaska and six areas off the Pacific coast.
Florida Republicans, including Governor Ron DeSantis, Sen. Rick Scott, and Sen. Ashley Moody, are urging the administration to pump the brakes on the new plan. The Florida leaders want the federal government to reconsider the policy President Trump enacted during his first term, which banned offshore oil leasing off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina through 2032.
&#8220;President Trump’s 2020 memorandum protecting Florida’s eastern Gulf waters represents a thoughtful approach to the issue. The Interior Department should not depart from the 2020 policy,&#8221; DeSantis <a href="https://x.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1991648106254069903">said</a>. The governor&#8217;s office added that the Gulf coast of Florida does &#8220;not have the same oil and gas reserves as other states in the region&#8221; and that the state &#8220;has active sites where drilling occurs on land.&#8221;
Florida politicians argue that the new oil leases threaten Florida&#8217;s pristine beaches, which attract millions of tourists each year, while also interfering with &#8220;critical&#8221; U.S. military bases on the state&#8217;s coast.
Scott, Florida&#8217;s senior senator and former governor, echoed DeSantis, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RickScottSenOffice/posts/floridas-beautiful-beaches-and-coastal-waters-are-so-important-to-our-states-eco/1386895662794430/">arguing</a>, &#8220;Florida’s beautiful beaches and coastal waters are so important to our state’s economy, environment, and military community, which is why I have fought for years to keep drilling off Florida’s coasts and worked closely with President Trump during his first term to extend the moratorium banning oil drilling off Florida’s coasts through 2032.&#8221;
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
&#8220;I have been speaking to Secretary Burgum and made my expectations clear that this moratorium must remain in place, and that in any plan, Florida’s coasts must remain off the table for oil drilling to protect Florida’s tourism, environment, and military training opportunities,&#8221; Scott added.
Senator Moody said the Trump administration&#8217;s move was &#8220;HIGHLY concerning,&#8221; adding that she &#8220;will be engaging directly with the [Interior Department] on this issue.&#8221;
The Interior Department&#8217;s move to free up more areas for offshore drilling is a response to former President Joe Biden&#8217;s &#8220;restrictive&#8221; oil and gas policies, according to the Trump administration.
“Offshore oil and gas production does not happen overnight. It takes years of planning, investment, and hard work before barrels reach the market,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “The Biden administration slammed the brakes on offshore oil and gas leasing and crippled the long-term pipeline of America’s offshore production. By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come.”
Trump&#8217;s <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-027-8408?originationContext=knowHow&amp;transitionType=KnowHowItem&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)&amp;firstPage=true">2020 memorandum</a> prevented areas off the Florida coast from being considered for &#8220;leasing for purposes of exploration, development, or production&#8221; until 2032. After signing the memorandum in 2020, Trump was criticized by some people who believed the president was seeking to gain political favor among Floridians ahead of the 2020 election.
During his 2024 presidential campaign and after returning to the White House in early 2025, Trump vowed to ramp up American energy production and bring down energy costs for Americans. To accomplish this, Trump said it was time for the United States to &#8220;drill, baby, drill,&#8221; and on his first day back in the White House in January, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/">declared</a> a national energy emergency.
&#8220;A major focus of our fight to reduce inflation is rapidly reducing the cost of energy. The previous administration cut the number of new oil and gas leases by 95%, slowed pipeline construction to a halt, and closed more than 100 power plants,&#8221; Trump said during his address to Congress in early March.
A group of Florida GOP representatives, including some of Trump&#8217;s most loyal supporters in Congress, also <a href="https://x.com/FBSaunders/status/1991623831610618051/photo/1">signed</a> a letter urging the president to reconsider the Interior Department&#8217;s latest directive.
&#8220;While we wholeheartedly support your push for American energy independence and expanded oil and gas production, the [Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range] is critical to advanced weapons development, flight testing, and joint exercises essential to maintaining America&#8217;s military superiority,&#8221; the letter states.

Florida Oil Drilling

Florida Republicans Aren’t Happy With Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan

Florida Republicans Aren't Happy With Trump's Offshore Drilling Plan

Florida

Republicans

Rick Scott

Ron DeSantis

Gas prices have finally fallen into territory drivers have long hoped for but rarely seen in recent years. The national average <a href="https://www.gilmermirror.com/2025/10/20/texas-weekly-gas-price-update-192/?">now sits</a> at $2.98 per gallon, down 4.1 cents in a week and about 15 cents lower than a year ago. Just last month, prices were nearly 20 cents higher, and many Americans had resigned themselves to paying “$3 or more forever” under the current economic status quo.
One major factor? The global oil picture has shifted: crude recently hit <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-drops-investors-weigh-supply-surplus-outlook-us-china-trade-tensions-2025-10-15/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20Oct%2015%20(Reuters,settle%20at%20%2461.91%20a%20barrel.">five‑month lows</a>, excess supply is forcing price discipline, and that means relief for American motorists. Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, <a href="https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/national-average-falls-below-3-refinery-outage-in-midwest-may-hike-regional-gas-prices">stated</a> that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) &#8220;deserves much of the credit for this trend, having steadily raised oil production for much of 2025.&#8221;
But the “why” behind the supply‑side motion connects directly to how the United States engages major producers—especially OPEC members like Saudi Arabia. President Donald Trump’s dealings with the Saudis have re‑energized the U.S.–Saudi partnership. In May 2025, his administration <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-historic-600-billion-investment-commitment-in-saudi-arabia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">announced</a> a Saudi investment commitment of $600 billion in U.S. industry, energy, infrastructure, and tech. On the energy front, Saudi’s national oil champion, Saudi Aramco, <a href="https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/saudi-aramco-signs-deals-worth-up-to-90-billion-with-us-companies-4045710?utm_source=chatgpt.com">announced</a> preliminary U.S. corporate ties worth up to $90 billion on the back of Trump’s Gulf tour. That kind of alignment means Saudis have skin in U.S. production and supply reliability, which gives the U.S. far more leverage in global markets and less reliance on adversarial supply shocks.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Contrast that with former President Joe Biden’s rhetoric.
“President Biden said he would make the kingdom of Saudi Arabia a pariah state. That was an enormous mistake,” former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pompeo-biden-calling-saudi-arabia-pariah-state-enormous-mistake">said</a> in July 2022. “But let&#8217;s look at the facts. They are an important security partner for the United States. There&#8217;s only one country in that whole region that wants to threaten the United States of America and Israel and wipe us from the face of the earth. That&#8217;s the leadership in Iran and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia&#8217;s been an important partner in helping protect us from that threat.”
In early April 2023, Saudi Arabia, whose relationship with the United States had taken a nosedive during Biden’s tenure, announced it would lead the members of OPEC, including Russia, to cut more than one million barrels of output a day starting next month, which could cause higher U.S. inflation.
And Biden was reticent about raiding the United States’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to keep customers happy. In March 2022, Biden announced that he would release 1 million barrels a day to cut the cost American consumers were paying for gas. That was the biggest withdrawal in the reserve’s 46-year-history.
Trump’s Saudi pivot has helped pay off for Americans at the pump.

Gas Prices Dip Lower Ahead Of July 4th Holiday Weekend

Gas Prices Plummet After Trump Rebuilds Ties With Saudis Biden Snubbed

Gas Prices

Joe Biden

OPEC

Saudi Arabia

World

Republican attorneys general are putting the pressure on a British climate activist group targeting the oil and gas industry and pushing an “unachievable climate agenda” that could jeopardize American energy independence and food supply. 
Over a dozen Republican AGs, led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, demanded Friday that the United Kingdom-based climate group Science Based Targets Initiative fork over documents on its work with companies to promote net zero emissions goals. The officials said that the group&#8217;s net zero commitments could run afoul of federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. 
“Net zero programs are unrealistic and harm both American agriculture and industry. Making net zero a goal actively harms Americans, creates risk for energy independence, and increases the cost of food,” the officials wrote in a <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/09.07_-_FINAL_-_SBTi_Letter.pdf">letter</a> exclusively shared with The Daily Wire. “Some economic arrangements are illegal because they are unfair or unreasonably harmful to competition; the ‘good intentions’ behind them are irrelevant.”
Science Based Targets Initiative “assesses and validates companies’ and financial institutions’ targets” through its subsidiary SBTi services and “develops standards, tools and guidance to enable companies and financial institutions to set science-based targets in line with the latest climate science,&#8221; according to the group&#8217;s <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/about-us">website</a>.
The group aims to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net zero levels by at least 2050. Last month, it <a href="https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/FINZ-in-brief.pdf?_gl=1*1ufvk31*_gcl_au*MTk1MTIzNDA4Mi4xNzUzMzY5NDgw*_ga*NTY0OTY4ODM1LjE3NTMzNjk0ODA.*_ga_22VNHNTFT3*czE3NTMzNjk0ODAkbzEkZzEkdDE3NTMzNzE1NTYkajYwJGwwJGgxOTY4MDIwOTA4">rolled</a> out a new “fossil fuel transition policy requirement” that “sets out clear steps and timelines for ceasing new financial activities and insurance services to the fossil fuel industry.” 
“SBTi is trying to redo President Biden’s radical green scheme,” Bird told The Daily Wire. “If successful, they’ll hurt farmers, energy producers, and Iowans. Their program limits output of goods or services but also net zero programs are unrealistic and harm both American agriculture and industry. Making net zero a goal actively harms Americans, creates risk for energy independence, and increases the cost of safe, healthy, nutritious food.” 
Similar organizations, including Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Alliances, have struggled in recent months after they lost major participants like BlackRock and other major financial institutions amid congressional and state scrutiny. 
In January, the House Judiciary Committee celebrated the exodus of groups from net zero alliances, with Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) calling the trend “a huge win for freedom and American prosperity.”
At one point, Net Zero Asset Managers Alliances, which says its goal is to push net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, boasted its members controlled over $57 trillion in assets. The company has now suspended all activities following the departures.
However, the Republican attorneys general said they were concerned that the Science Based Targets Initiative was cropping up to push similar mandates and initiatives. 
“As did those who subscribed to the previous net-zero alliances, members agree that they will perform certain functions — here, shutting off funding and insurance to oil, gas, and coal expansion — to be validated by SBTi,” they wrote. “But companies cannot collude to refuse access to their services, whether they do so in a smoke-filled room or launder that collusion through a third party.”
In addition to Bird, the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia signed onto the letter.
They requested that the Science Based Targets Initiative provide communications by September 8 between the group and its members on how climate commitments would be met, how financial institutions&#8217; net zero goals were developed, and information on the group&#8217;s funding.
The Science Based Targets Initiative has already faced pressure from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who opened an investigation last week into SBTi to see if it may be violating consumer protection and antitrust laws. 
The attorneys general&#8217;s actions were backed by American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac and Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild. 
“SBTi’s financial standards aren’t just unrealistic, they’re potentially illegal, coordinating global firms to cut off essential industries from capital and insurance. These actions drive up energy and food prices for American families, all while outsourcing control to foreign NGOs and U.N.-backed pressure groups,” Isaac told The Daily Wire. “Americans aren’t going to sit back while unelected activists dictate economic policy from across the Atlantic.&#8221;

High Oil Prices Continue To Drive Gas Prices Steadily Upwards

Republican AGs Turn Up The Heat On British Climate Group Targeting Oil And Gas Industries

British

Carbon Emissions

Iowa

China is reportedly using a “dark fleet” to conduct secret ship-to-ship transfers of Iranian oil in an effort to evade U.S. sanctions on Tehran’s tankers.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-iran-us-sanctions-dark-fleet/">CBS News</a> sent a crew to scout an area roughly 80 nautical miles from Singapore and found four ship-to-ship transfers occurring; all the “dark fleet” tankers had their transponders switched off, and “clearly do not want to be identified,” the outlet reported.
“Both ships have a net or something, a tarp, deployed over the stern, covering the name and identification number — it’s obvious deceptive practice,” Charlie Brown, senior adviser with United Against Nuclear Iran and advisor to the Trump administration, who has been studying the “dark fleet” for years, stated.
“This is ‘dark fleet’ parking central,” he commented, calling one ship, the Tifani, “a well-known ‘dark fleet’ tanker.”
“The tankers, full of oil, sail from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Malacca to the Riau archipelago,” CBS News noted. “There, they transfer the crude to ships bound for China, which buys 90% of Iran’s oil. &#8230; According to a congressional report last year, this trade generated as much as $70 billion for Iran, propping up the regime and its nuclear weapons program. &#8230; By the end of the day, 12 ship-to-ship transfers were recorded in the Riau archipelago — an unprecedented number and a clear indication Iran and China are only ramping up this illicit activity.”
On Wednesday, in its most significant Iran-related action since 2018, the Treasury Department imposed <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0215">new sanctions</a> on more than 50 individuals and entities and identified more than 50 vessels that are part of the vast shipping empire controlled by Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani (Hossein). Hossein is the son of Ali Shamkhani, a top political advisor to the Supreme Leader of Iran.
“The Shamkhani family’s shipping empire highlights how the Iranian regime elites leverage their positions to accrue massive wealth and fund the regime’s dangerous behavior,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated. “The over 115 sanctions issued today are the largest to-date since the Trump Administration implemented our campaign of maximum pressure on Iran. These actions put America first by targeting regime elites that profit while Tehran threatens the safety of the United States.”
“Hossein’s network exerts control over a significant portion of Iran’s crude oil exports, the proceeds of which substantially benefit his family and the Iranian regime,” the Treasury Department declared. “His father, Ali Shamkhani was <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm870">previously sanctioned by the U.S. in 2020</a>.”
“Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani’s (Hossein) network comprises a vast fleet of vessels, ship management firms, and front companies—some posing as legitimate financial services firms—that launder billions in profits from global sales of Iranian and Russian crude oil and other petroleum products, most often to buyers in China,” the Treasury Department added. “The network employs significant measures to disguise its operations and obfuscate its ties to the Shamkhani family, Iran, and Russia.”

Imported Crude Oil Tanker

Secret Transfers: China’s ‘Dark Fleet’ Helps Iran Sneak Oil Past U.S. Sanctions

Sanctions

Flashback to September 2018.
That’s when President Donald Trump stood before the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-nations">United Nations</a> and warned Germany about the dangers of becoming addicted to Russian energy.
In response, the <a href="https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/germans-laugh-after-trump-warns-of-reliance-on-foreign-oil/5029974">German delegation laughed</a> in his face. They scoffed. The global press rolled their eyes. Trump, they said, didn’t understand how the world worked.
Fast forward to 2025: those same European leaders are preparing to cut a <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/eu-ditch-russia-agrees-purchase-750b-american-energy-supplies">$750 billion check</a> for American energy – as a result of President Trump’s deal-making.
Who’s laughing now?
The energy investment is a centerpiece of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-the-united-states-and-european-union-reach-massive-trade-deal/">the trade agreement</a> reached between Washington and Brussels on Sunday. The deal isn’t just a seismic shift in European policy — it’s a vindication of Trump’s America First vision. It is also a humiliating rebuke of the Biden administration’s energy failures. While Biden spent four years kneecapping American producers and begging hostile foreign actors for help, Trump was laying the groundwork for energy dominance.
Now, the world is willing to pay for it — literally.
<h3>Biden Begged For Foreign Oil</h3>
Let’s not forget the image that defined Biden’s energy policy: the President of the United States traveling to Saudi Arabia, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/18/oil-price-rises-joe-biden-saudi-output-petrol-diesel-prices">fist-bumping the crown prince</a>, and pleading for more oil. Not only did the Saudis say no, they mocked him by cutting production just months later.
Even worse, Biden’s administration reportedly <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/biden-admin-asked-saudi-arabia-to-postpone-opec-cut-by-a-month-saudis-say.html">begged the Saudis</a> to delay that production cut until after the 2022 midterms — because keeping gas prices low wasn’t about helping Americans, it was about helping Democrats stay in power.
All Biden had to do was unleash American energy. But he couldn’t. His green agenda wouldn’t allow it. He blocked drilling, shut down pipelines, and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-pauses-approval-new-lng-export-projects-win-climate-activists-2024-01-26/">froze LNG exports</a>. He made it harder to produce energy here, so we had to buy it from over there.
President Trump’s deal flips the script. Instead of American dollars flowing to foreign regimes, European money is now flowing to the U.S. This isn’t diplomacy through weakness — it’s dominance through strength. President Trump didn’t have to beg because he knows how to lead.
<h3>A Boon To The American Economy</h3>
This $750 billion deal is more than just a geopolitical win — it’s rocket fuel for the American economy. More domestic energy production means more high-paying jobs, more local prosperity, and more opportunities in towns that the Biden economy left behind.
While Biden shut down LNG export projects, Trump is cranking the valves wide open. American energy workers aren’t waiting for a government subsidy — they’re producing real energy the world needs.
Let’s also not ignore Europe’s glaring hypocrisy. In 2024, the European Union spent nearly <a href="https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/eu-imports-of-russian-fossil-fuels-in-third-year-of-invasion-surpass-financial-aid-sent-to-ukraine/">€22 billion on Russian energy</a> — more than the €18.7 billion they gave Ukraine in aid. So, while they waved Ukrainian flags and tried to shame America, they were still funding Putin’s war machine. Now, thanks to President Trump, those Euros will come to American producers instead of Moscow’s war chest. It&#8217;s not just an energy shift — it&#8217;s a moral one.
<h3>Fueling The Fight Against The Deficit</h3>
There’s another upside Biden’s team never understood: when America produces energy, America generates revenue. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-103676">took in over $16 billion</a> in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-federal-energy-revenue-falls-10-2024-still-among-biggest-years-ever-2024-11-08/">just one year</a> from oil and gas leases and royalties.
Trump’s deal promises to supercharge those numbers. More production means more revenue — without raising taxes on a single American family. It’s simple math: energy made here, sold abroad, grows our economy and shrinks our deficit. No gimmicks. No IRS expansion. Just common sense.
Perhaps the most staggering contrast between Biden and President Trump’s EU deal comes down to this: where the money is going.
Under Biden, the federal government <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/biden-regrets-calling-spending-bill-inflation-reduction-act/">dumped $369 billion </a>of your tax dollars into green energy pipe dreams — Chinese solar panels, offshore wind disasters, and EV charger projects that never got built.
Under Trump? He just secured more than double that amount — $750 billion — in foreign investment in American energy. No taxpayer gimmicks. No dependence on Beijing. Just American energy, made by American workers, powering the world again.
Yes, it’s safe to say the German delegation isn’t laughing anymore. But thanks to Donald Trump, they’ll have plenty of American natural gas to keep them warm through the winter.
* * *
Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu