U.S. demand for power is indisputably growing for the first time in a decade. Tech firms are building massive data centers to serve our needs for artificial intelligence, cat videos and social media posts. Texas just registered the state’s 400,000th electric vehicle.
Yet it seems like the White House doesn’t want utilities to meet that new demand — at least not with clean, affordable energy. Instead, the administration is pushing expensive fossil fuels that will damage the climate.
Next on Trump’s chopping block is the $6 billion Maryland Offshore Wind Project, which was scheduled to begin construction next year and employ thousands of workers. Earlier, Trump tried to cancel New York’s $5 billion Empire Wind offshore project but relented when New York Gov. Kathy Hochul agreed to allow construction of new natural gas pipelines.
Trump parrots lies to justify his assault on wind, but his deal with Hochul reveals his true agenda. California has cut natural gas use for electricity by 28% over the past two years by switching to renewables. The oil and gas industry is terrified that the rest of the country will follow suit and has begged him for help protecting their market share.
Trump’s campaign against clean energy has killed $18.6 billion in clean energy projects within the last year, according to the Atlas Public Policy Center’s Clean Energy Tracker. U.S. renewable energy spending is down 36% this year while global investment rose 10%, energy consulting firm BloombergNEF reported.
—
The Commerce Department launched a trade investigation into wind turbinesimported from overseas, a possible prelude to tariffs that would drive up costs. And Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced plans to block farmers from selling their land for solar projects, saying she was “protecting our family farms and our way of life.”
None of this matches the traditional Republican commitment to free markets, where private actors compete to provide the best goods or services without government interference. Nor does it seem to respect property owners’ right to buy, sell or use their land as they see fit.
I’ve never missed President Ronald Reagan so much. What happened to the all-of-the-above strategy to provide Americans with the energy they need?
Trump is not a conservative or even a free-market capitalist. He demanded that NVIDIA share profits, that Intel and U.S. Steel give up shares to the government. He has also tried to dictate who companies hire as executives.
This is not what conservatives would call hands-off governing.
Idiot, sycophant or genocidal criminal?
Responding to Kasparov, can’t it be both?
Back when Trump had his fight with Rex Tillerson and called him stupid, essentially, I finally figured out that Trump’s definition of ‘smart’ is different than others’ definition of the term. He sees ‘smart’ as the ability to get ahead personally and professionally – and this includes both the corrupt (fraud, cheating, lying, etc.) and the mundane (being a good sycophant when it will benefit themselves). A ‘low IQ’ person is the opposite, because they are doing something that might hurt them personally or professionally – Liz Cheney being an example:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-attacks-low-iq-liz-180108135.html
The ‘smart’ Republicans, therefore, are the ones that accept this and don’t let principle or the intellect get in the way of it. I’d bet Burgum realizes this and is playing the game accordingly. To Trump, he’d be quite ‘smart’.
So, this is paywalled, and will be very controversial here, but it’s worth knowing about:
The Myth of Peak Fossil-Fuel Demand Is Crumbling
The use of oil and gas will continue to climb for decades, according to a draft of the International Energy Agency’s annual report.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-09-11/peak-fossil-fuel-demand-is-a-crumbling-myth
‘The world is far, far, far off in its efforts to keep the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial averages, as negotiated in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. If I’m right, the world is probably heading toward a disastrous 3C. When the IEA publishes its old-but-new scenario, there will be a battle to control the message. The fossil-fuel industry, with Saudi Arabia at the top, will herald the potential for stronger-than-expected oil, gas and coal demand as vindication. Maybe. But the prospect of more pollution is also a call for action.
For now, the world isn’t performing an “energy transition” but an “energy addition,” where renewables top up oil, gas and coal. Regardless of well-intended green aspirations, that will remain the case for years, if not decades, unless governments impose significant changes. Hope isn’t a policy.’
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/09/12/epa-proposes-end-to-mandatory-greenhouse-gas-reporting.html
“And Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced plans to block farmers from selling their land for solar projects…”
As we all know from Peter’s reporting here, farmers generally lease their land to solar farmers. Even if that weren’t already the case, businesses and bankers have long known how to dance around laws and taxes by crafting mechanisms (like leasing, or special trading contracts, or going through a third party). Rollins, presumably, would not block the farmers from selling their land to property developers, and they could just pivot and sell/lease the land to solar power companies.