Trump Truth Social: ‘Big Beautiful Coal' Helping Trump to Transform America
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week.
In his latest Truth Social posting, the President's Trumpy nature was in full flow.
Dashboard Delivers
Okay, it wasn't quite the President's own words, more a reposting of someone else's fulsome quotes but they certainly seemed to have made the President fluff up his oil slick free feathers.
Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright: 'President Trump has TRANSFORMED the American energy landscape. You're going to see a lot more of big, beautiful, clean coal!'
U.S oil stocks didn't fare too well with Exxon Mobil (XOM) stock down 0.4% in early trading, with Chevron (CVX) also off 0.4%. More British focused stocks such as BP (BP) did better with it and Shell (SHEL) getting an around 0.35% lift.
One of Trump's main mantras since his first day in charge, and before that in campaign speeches up and down the country, has been 'Drill, baby, drill' offering succour to oil and gas firms but switching the lights off for renewable energy firms. He has paused new permits for offshore wind farms and rowed back on green energy incentives.
He has also ordered government agencies to identify ways to increase already record high U.S. oil and gas production, arguing past administrations had unnecessarily curtailed drilling.
Feeling Green
Indeed, in another Trumpy tweet today he praised another blow to the green energy lobby.
'To the many Great Americans enjoying their Summer Vacations in Atlantic City, Wildwood, and Cape May, in the wonderful State of New Jersey, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean: Remember that your Republican Congressman, and my GREAT friend, Jeff Van Drew, is fighting hard, and WINNING, to keep your Beaches BEAUTIFUL, with NO WINDMILLS. In fact, we just beat one of the biggest Windmill projects anywhere in the World. It would have been a disaster, but they gave up because of the onslaught of 'TRUMP'/Van Drew. Great job, Jeff!'
Green stocks, such as Danish developer Orsted (DOGEF), have indeed suffered in comparison with oil.
We have rounded up the best energy stocks to buy using our TipRanks comparison tool.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Congress approves public media and foreign aid cuts: What to know
Congress this week approved a bill that claws back about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, as Republicans look to begin locking in cuts pursued by his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The package includes about $8 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign aid, as well as more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding to NPR and PBS. Here are five things to know about the bill. NPR and PBS brace for cuts The bill yanks back more than $1 billion in advanced funding appropriated for CPB over fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Many Republicans say the cuts are long overdue, singling out NPR and PBS, for what they perceive as political bias. But some are concerned about how the cuts would impact smaller stations. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS based in Arlington. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. At the same time, however, fees from member stations, which rely on a larger share of CPB funding on average, make up about 30 percent of NPR's funding. PBS says it also receives annual programming dues from stations to carry national programming. About 35 percent of the annual funding for PBS News Hour, the organization said, comes from CPB and national programming funds it described as 'a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours.' Public media faces fiscal 'cliff' in October Opponents of the cuts have already sounded alarm about the fiscal 'cliff' that some stations will face as a result of the latest legislation come October, the start of fiscal year 2026. 'It is a cliff,' Rep. Rosa Delauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told The Hill Thursday. 'They're already speaking about it, frightened to death, particularly in rural communities that they're not going to have access to important information or alerts about weather situations, information that they need to know, education for their kids, because they're not in communities where there are multiple sources of information.' In a statement responding to passage of the cuts on Friday, CPB president Patricia Harrison said 'many local public radio and television stations will be forced to shut down.' 'Cutting federal funding could also put Americans at risk of losing national and local emergency alerts that serve as a lifeline to many Americans in times of severe need,' Harrison also said. Senators on both sides of the aisle have raised similar concerns. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said at the Hill Nation Summit on Wednesday that the cuts could put rural radio stations in her home state out of business, calling them 'the lifeblood of these communities when it comes to emergency alerts.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans in the upper chamber to vote against the bill, pointed to a recent earthquake in her home state. Seven-point-three [magnitude] earthquake off of Alaska and tsunami warnings. You know how I got this information? From public broadcasting,' she said on the Senate floor. Less than 5 percent of the nonprofit corporation's funding goes toward its operations, while more than 70 percent 'goes directly to local public media stations,' CPB states on its website. And almost half of its 'total 544 radio and TV grantees are considered rural.' However, many Republicans have downplayed the cuts. 'There's so many means for communications now that we didn't have in the 1960s. Everyone has it on their phone,' Rep. Mark Alford (R-Missouri) told The Hill this week. 'Everyone, pretty much, has a smartphone, even in rural districts that that I represent, there's all types of access for information that we didn't have in the 1960s' 'I don't think the American taxpayer should be funding journalism,' Alford, who is also a former television news anchor, also said, while arguing there's a 'liberal, progressive bent towards NPR and PBS.' Foreign aid The request initially sent by the White House called for $8.3 billion in cuts to USAID and other foreign aid. But the White House ended up agreeing to exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was established under former President George W. Bush in 2003 and totaled about $400 million, after those cuts became a critical point of contention for moderate GOP lawmakers. The administration said the bill targets items like migration and refugee assistance that 'could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors,' USAID efforts officials say have been used to 'fund radical gender and climate projects,' and development assistance they argued 'conflict with American values' and 'interfere with the sovereignty of other countries,' among other rescissions. Republicans in both chambers have overwhelmingly cheered the cuts. But a few have also voiced concerns about the proposal in recent weeks, sounding alarm over what they see as a lack of information about the accounts being targeted. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) specifically singled out a proposed $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account. She noted in a statement that the account 'covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security,' but said lawmakers still lacked key details as to how those programs would be affected. More cuts could be coming Republicans see the bill as a critical 'test run' for the party, as Trump administration officials have already indicated they aim to send multiple special requests to Congress to claw back more funding if the first package makes it through. White House budget chief Russell Vought said Thursday that another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon,' though he stopped short of offering specifics as to what programs could be on the chopping block. 'Have nothing to announce, but we've been talking about it, and there's certainly an enthusiasm, although,' Vought said. 'I spent a good hour with Senate Republicans, there is still a great enthusiasm for these rescissions bills, because Congress wants to be a part of voting for these cuts and making them permanent.' Hardline conservatives have ramped up calls in recent months for the president to use the rare 'rescissions' tool – which unlocks a process that Republicans can use to secure funding cuts with GOP-only votes – as the party looks to codify DOGE cuts amid legal challenges over the administration's efforts to reshape the federal government. Implications for Sept. 30 Fewer than 20 legislative days stand between Congress and a looming Sept. 30 deadline to prevent a government shutdown. Both chambers are running behind in marking up and pushing their annual funding bills across the floor — increasing the likelihood Congress will have to resort to a stopgap measure to keep the lights on and buy time for lawmakers to finish their funding work. Senate Democrats have already warned the passage of the recent rescissions package threatens already fragile bipartisan funding talks. And some Republicans are also eager to begin shifting more focus to crafting and approving new funding levels for fiscal 2026. Asked about the administration's plans to send Congress additional requests for cuts, Murkowski, a senior GOP appropriator, said, 'I do not think that should be our path.' 'It's not legislating. It's basically the White House saying this is what we want you to do. Take it or leave it,' she told reporters this week.
