logo
‘Black box': What exactly is Trump's energy council doing?

‘Black box': What exactly is Trump's energy council doing?

E&E News28-05-2025

President Donald Trump launched a council to promote U.S. energy supremacy more than three months ago, but the advisory group remains an enigma.
Some Trump supporters credit the National Energy Dominance Council for the administration's most high-profile energy moves, from fast-tracking environmental permits to expanding mining for critical minerals to seeking more offshore drilling. They also give it credit for other feats, such as lower U.S. gasoline prices.
While some of Trump's executive orders pinpoint a specific role for the council, it's unclear how the body operates on a day-to-day basis and whether it has sought to drive policy or market changes.
Advertisement
Since mid-February, the panel has seen its executive director come and go, and the White House has not detailed who works at the council or said how often the members all come together. Trump issued an executive order creating the council on Feb. 14, as well as a related fact sheet. The council doesn't appear to have a website.
'It's not clear exactly what [the council's] functions are,' said Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
The president publicly discussed the National Energy Dominance Council in February at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by the new council's leaders: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright. The president's executive order designates the Interior head as the council's chair and the Energy secretary as the vice chair. In addition, it lists 17 other spots on the council, from the U.S. trade representative to the Defense secretary.
'We're going to be energy dominant like nobody else,' the president said at the February event.
The council is supposed to provide Trump with a 'recommended National Energy Dominance Strategy' that's built on cutting 'unnecessary' regulation and boosting private sector investment in 'all sectors of the energy-producing economy,' according to the executive order.
In it, Trump gave marching orders to the council for its first 100 days with actions it 'shall' take. The council has now been around for about 100 days.
According to the order, the council must recommend a plan to Trump to 'raise awareness on a national level of matters related to energy dominance' and advise Trump on actions each agency can take to grow production — like 'rapidly facilitating' approvals for energy infrastructure and approving the construction of natural gas pipelines into or in New England, California, Alaska and other regions.
The White House did not tell POLITICO's E&E News what specific pipelines it would like to see built, although Trump has signaled he wants to see the revival of the Constitution pipeline — which was canceled in 2020 but has been discussed as a new link between Pennsylvania and upstate New York.
Ben Dietderich, a DOE spokesperson, said expanding pipeline infrastructure in the Northeast and across the United States is a top priority for the administration. The region has long had expensive energy because of inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity, he said.
'The department will continue working closely with the White House and the entire National Energy Dominance Council to advance President Trump's agenda and secure America's energy future, this includes by advocating for the construction of additional energy infrastructure, such as pipelines,' Dietderich said in a statement.
The White House has also thrown its support behind the planned Alaska LNG project, including an 807-mile pipeline that would run from the state's North Slope to its south. Burgum, Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin are set to visit Alaska next month to appear on a panel with Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy about energy issues.
Burgum and Wright traveled to Louisiana in March, where they spoke at an event at Venture Global's Plaquemines LNG terminal. Their remarks focused on cutting red tape and boosting U.S. exports of the supercooled gas. EPA has also sought to present a different focus under Trump.
'Administrator Zeldin has worked diligently to drive economic growth by unleashing energy dominance, pursuing permitting reform, and bolstering energy security through commonsense policies and actions to bring back reliable forms of energy production while ensuring clean air, land, and water for every American,' said Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokesperson, in a statement.
In addition to the Alaska summit, Zeldin will also be visiting EPA's Region 10 operations center and holding meetings with elected officials, Vaseliou said.
Offices of governors in Alaska, California, New York and New England did not return requests for comment. The office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, declined to comment.
'Direct action'
Burgum has the top spot at the energy dominance council, but the Interior Department did not answer questions last week about who staffs the council, how often it meets or what policy items it is focused on.
'Since President Trump established the National Energy Dominance Council, prices for many goods and services have seen steady declines,' Interior spokesperson Elizabeth Peace said in a statement.
Peace said the council 'is championing the President's Energy Dominance agenda by delivering big wins, real savings, and unstoppable growth for the American people.'
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has worked on issues such as the licensing of deepwater ports to pipeline safety, his department said in a statement.
Beyond Cabinet-level positions, the council is filled with at least seven other economic and security advisers, including Robin Colwell, Stephen Miran and Stephen Miller, based on a list of titles included in Trump's February order. Colwell is deputy director of the White House National Economic Council and deputy assistant to the president for economic policy. The Senate confirmed Miran in March as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Miller is the White House deputy chief of staff for policy.
Trump has yet to nominate the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Katherine Scarlett is chief of staff at CEQ.
CEQ is committed to working with the energy dominance council to 'advance President Trump's agenda to make America energy dominant,' the office said in a statement. CEQ pointed to the recent creation of a permitting innovation center as an example of efforts to eliminate 'red tape' and update permitting technology.
Among the energy dominance council's staffers is Brittany Kelm, who started earlier this month a senior policy adviser within the Executive Office of the President, according to a LinkedIn post. Kelm is an alum of oil and gas companies Shell and Valero. Another staffer is William Doffermyre, according to a LinkedIn post.
DOE did not respond to requests for comment about the National Energy Dominance Council. The State Department referred E&E News to the White House, which did not answer questions about the council's actions and future.
Jeremy Harrell, CEO of the conservative clean energy group ClearPath, said the council is going to be less about reports and more about 'direct action' that agencies can take to further Trump's energy dominance agenda.
'I think we saw that in the critical minerals [executive order], where it was highlighting multiple actions across agencies that they had the ability to use executive authority to push forward,' he said.
Harrell said the council seems to be taking an approach of pursuing near-term opportunities, such as the Trump administration's push for projects of 'national significance' — like advanced reactor demonstration projects at DOE — as well as growing American energy supply chains.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, said she'd like to see the council follow the models of the National Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council, 'which coordinate policies across Cabinet agencies without putting out reports.'
Success for the council can be attributed to the body's 'convening power, as it brings together diverse stakeholders,' said Brigham McCown, senior fellow and the director at the Hudson Institute's Initiative on American Energy Security.
He said it's 'too early to identify shortcomings,' given the relative newness of the group and its work. But he recommended a 'strong sense of urgency to their mission, as we are years behind in successfully addressing our looming energy deficits.'
'Not particularly transparent'
While 'energy dominance' is frequently mentioned by the administration, energy analysts said the daily operations of the advisory council are kept behind the curtain.
'It's not particularly transparent,' said Pielke Jr. with the American Enterprise Institute.
He argued that the opaque nature of the council is characteristic of the Trump administration generally, where it is not clear how choices and policy development actually happen.
'The processes that normally function [in an administration] are different,' Pielke Jr. said. 'It's just kind of a black box.'
Pielke Jr. said that coordinating energy policy across agencies is a viable idea to address a complex issue. But he said he's been disappointed with the administration's pursuit of policy primarily through executive orders, which he said have less staying power than legislation. He said that's particularly true with long-term projects like pipelines, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure projects that take years to build.
'The administration is not going to have a lasting impact on energy policy despite the rhetoric if it doesn't engage Congress in legislative activity,' he said.
The House passed a major Trump-backed budget reconciliation bill last week. The legislation — which still needs Senate approval — includes measures such as faster phase-downs of certain production and investment credits for renewable energy and speeding up reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Piekle Jr. said the whipsaw of policy priorities between Democratic and Republican administrations, leaves developers with uncertain choices in the face of unstable policy and urged the administration to focus on congressional action.
ClearPath's Harrell said executive orders, such as the one on critical minerals, showcase the council's coordination. He pointed to the multiagency nature of the order.
'You're seeing those as central administration positions because the energy dominance council is about bringing those folks together and putting forth a strategic plan,' Harrell said.
Ellen Wald, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center, said she hopes the dominance council focuses on developing a strategic reserve for critical minerals, long-term planning for energy infrastructure projects and setting deadlines for replacing canceled rules and regulations from the Biden administration.
She said the partisanship that now pervades federal rulemaking means that policies are reversed from one administration to the next, and it usually takes months or years for the new administration to implement a replacement rule.
'If you don't have faith that the regulations that you started following are going to be the same ones that are there, it's really, really challenging,' Wald said.
Even if rules are going to impose stringent requirements on industry, she said, it's easier for companies to operate if the requirements are consistent.
'Most energy infrastructure projects are going to take more than four years [to build],' she said.
David Hill, executive vice president of energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, said building energy infrastructure should be a 'top priority' for the council and Congress.
Supporters say the council is functioning in a way that Trump would want.
'President Trump made it pretty clear, and so did Secretary Burgum, that all of the energy issues from all of the different departments and agencies are funneling up to his energy dominance council,' said Carla Sands, vice chair of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute and a former ambassador to Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks
Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks

Sky News understands that the Trump administration approached the UK government to ask if it would host round two of the US-China trade talks. This is a useful 'diplo-win' for the UK. The first round was held in Geneva last month. News of that happening came as a surprise. The Chinese and the Americans were in the midst of a Trump-instigated trade war. President Trump was en route to Saudi Arabia and suddenly we got word of talks in Switzerland. They went surprisingly well. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng, met face-to-face and agreed to suspend most tariffs for 90 days. But two weeks later, the Trump administration accused Beijing of breaking the agreements reached in Geneva. Beijing threw the blame back at Washington. On Wednesday, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping spoke by phone. The Chinese claimed this call was at the Americans' request. Either way, the consequence was that the talks were back on track. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, trade deal," President Trump said this week. From that call came the impetus for a second round of talks. A venue was needed. In stepped the UK at short notice. Beyond being geographically convenient, UK government sources suggest that Britain is geopolitically in the right place right now to act as this bridge and facilitator. The UK-China relationship is in the process of a "reset". Other locations, like Brussels or other EU capitals, would have been less workable. Crucially too, for the UK, this is also potentially advantageous as it seeks to get its own UK-US trade agreement, to eliminate or massively reduce tariffs, over the line. Talks on reaching the "implementation phase" have been near-continuous since the announcement last month, but having the American principals in London is a plus. Sideline talks are possible, but even the presence of the US team in the UK is helpful. Read more from Sky News:Man wrongly deported from US to El Salvador has been returned to face criminal chargesMore than 40 'narco-boat' drug smugglers arrested in major police sting For all the chaos that President Trump is causing with his tariffs, he has instigated face-to-face conversations as he seeks resets. Key players are sitting down around tables - yes, to untangle the trade knots which Trump tied, but this whole episode has pulled foes together around the same table; it has forced relationships and maybe mutual understanding. That's useful. And for this next round, between superpowers, the UK is the host. Also useful.

Healey touts state tuition savings, criticizes federal cuts to Pell Grants
Healey touts state tuition savings, criticizes federal cuts to Pell Grants

Boston Globe

time20 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Healey touts state tuition savings, criticizes federal cuts to Pell Grants

Overall, MASSGrant Plus Expansion program saved more than 34,000 Massachusetts students an estimated $110 million in the 2023-2024 academic year, the statement said. More than 7,730 middle income students saved an average of $3,856 each, according to data from the state Department of Higher Education, the statement said. Advertisement In the same statement, Healey urged the US Senate to reject Pell Grant cuts included in the federal budget reconciliation bill recently passed by Republicans in the U.S. House and supported by President Trump. The proposed cuts and eligibility restrictions would results in 42,000 Massachusetts students at public institutions losing $57 million in funding each year, according to Healey's statement said. 'Massachusetts is home to the best schools in the country, but we need to make sure that they are affordable for all of our students,' Healey's statement said. 'That's why I took action to increase financial aid at our public colleges and universities, which has already lowered costs for tens of thousands of students.' The drastic cuts proposed to the Pell Grant program would 'roll back the progress we have made and increase costs,' Healey said. Advertisement 'This is bad for our students and bad for our economy, as it would hold back our next generation of workers from being able to afford to go to school,' she said. Healey announced $62 million in new state funding to expand the MASSGrant program during a ceremony at Salem State University in November 2023. The new funding covered the full costs of tuition and mandatory instructional fees for Pell Grant-eligible students, and as much as half for middle-income students. Middle-income students are those whose families earn between $73,000 and $100,000 annually in adjusted gross income. The program was retroactive to the start of the fall 2023 semester for Massachusetts students at the states public institutions, including its 15 community colleges, nine state universities, and four University of Massachusetts undergraduate campuses. Funding for the expansion of the program also drew on $84 million Healey and the legislature had set earmarked for financial aid expansion in the FY24 budget, Healey's office said at the time. 'The dramatic enrollment increases our community colleges have seen over the last two years make it clear that free community college and expanded financial aid is a game changer for students in Massachusetts,' Luis Pedraja, chair of the Community College Council of Presidents, and president of Quinsigamond Community College said in the statement. 'The proposed Pell eligibility changes would be devastating to our students' ability to afford higher education and the community college presidents in Massachusetts urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised change,' Pedraja said. Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler said he feared the impacts proposed cuts could have on students who struggle to afford college. Advertisement 'Low-income students deserve to go to college just as much as their higher income peers, and these changes are going to take us backwards – increasing dropout rates and leaving students saddled with more debt and no degree," Tutwiler said in the statement. Tonya Alanez can be reached at

The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era
The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era

Todd Weaver has an important message for Apple as it faces growing demands by President Donald Trump to reshore some of its smartphone production: Don't listen to the conventional wisdom. Experts have long said that manufacturing iPhones in the U.S., rather than Asia, as Apple does, would be logistically impossible and ridiculously expensive. But Weaver argues companies can indeed do it successfully, and at a similar or only slightly higher cost—if given several years to navigate the inevitable complications. Weaver should know: His startup, Purism, is among the few, if not the only business, that assembles smartphones in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. pedigree is the main selling point of his company's Made in America device, the Liberty Phone. 'It is challenging to do this in the U.S.,' Weaver acknowledges. 'It's probably the reason I'm the only one.' And yet, he says his company has managed to make it work and has been profitable for the last two years—a real world example of what's possible on a hot-button topic in which political talking points and vested interests often dominate the debate. President Donald Trump recently put U.S. smartphone production in the spotlight as part of his global trade war. On May 23, he used social network Truth Social to publicly attack Apple for importing iPhones into the U.S., rather than making them domestically, and then threatened the company with a 25% tariff if it continued to do so. Whether any of the import taxes will become permanent is unclear given Trump's whiplash decision-making and court challenges by third parties. Still, Apple has long assembled its iPhones overseas, mainly in China, and has resisted relocating any of that production to the U.S. In April, when Trump announced his tariffs, Apple went so far as to shift the sourcing of most U.S.-bound iPhones to India, which faced lower import taxes. U.S. assembly was never publicly mentioned as a possibility. In the past, Apple CEO Cook explained the reluctance by saying the abundance of skilled labor and top-notch suppliers overseas would be difficult to reproduce at home. Weaver's company, of course, is no Apple, which has sold more than 2 billion iPhones globally since introducing the first models in 2007. The devices unleashed a new era in the tech industry in which mobile devices became the prime focus. Purism, in contrast, has sold just tens of thousands of phones since debuting its first model in 2018, according to Weaver. And the company is barely-known outside the world of tech nerds. Its Liberty Phone, manufactured near San Diego, comes with U.S.-made electronics installed on a metal chassis from China. It retails for $1,999. Another phone, the Librem 5, is mostly the same design, except it's made in China with Chinese parts, and costs $799. The company also produces tablet computers, laptops, and servers. Purism pitches its Made in America device as more secure and privacy friendly than those from major manufactures like Apple. Because all the critical parts and assembly are domestic, it's easy to verify that they haven't been tampered with by a foreign adversary that wants to snoop or stuff them with explosives. The phones also run on a Linux-based open source operating system. Anyone with technical know-how who is worried about the security can review the code—unlike with more popular phones, which come with operating systems that can't be easily inspected. Additionally, Purism's phones come with three kill switches that lets users physically disconnect their device from cell service, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, along with its microphone and camera. When turned on, the switches sever the electrical circuit to the features they control and make it impossible for them to be accessed by hackers, Weaver said. Toggling on Airplane Mode, as users often do on more mainstream phones, is less secure, he said, because it's a purely software feature that doesn't cut power to the device's chips. Customers who are especially security conscious can pay extra to have their devices shipped with 'tamper evident tape' on the packaging, among other options, to flag any monkey business during transit. Purism's biggest customers are government agencies, many of which require high security, and individual consumers. The company's clients, Weaver said, include the FBI and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Weaver said the cost of manufacturing the Purism's two phones is largely the same, despite one being made overseas and the other domestically. The phone that's made in China costs around $600 for parts, manufacturing, and assembly while the U.S.-made one comes in at $650. 'Producing goods in China vs. the U.S. is the same plus or minus 10%,' said Weaver, based mostly on automation. The difference between what Purism charges customers for its two phones is partly due to the higher profit margin the company collects for its U.S.-made device. People who want stronger security are often willing to pay extra for it, Weaver said. It also covers the extra overhead from some customers wanting to verify that Purism's supply chain is secure and the small additional cost of U.S. manufacturing. Purism's assembly line is in Carlsbad, Calif., where up to a dozen workers put together devices. The area is home to a pool of skilled labor thanks to the local defense industry and manufacturing for other mobile carriers. That relatively modest assembly line is a major contrast to the factories that make iPhones, operated by contract manufacturers, mostly in China. Those facilities can be the size of several football fields and employ over 100,000 people who work around-the-clock shifts. Weaver said the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage to China when it comes to skilled workers, who make up a significant part of the workforce in smartphone factories. The only way to reverse the shortage and lay the groundwork for companies to reshore their production is to encourage more people to learn skills that are useful in the manufacturing process, he said. 'If you go over to China you can find buildings and buildings of thousands of electronics engineers. If you look here, you can find maybe five total,' Weaver said. Apple, for example, would risk a catastrophe if it suddenly, in 2026, needed to ramp up staffing in the U.S. to produce millions of iPhones, he said. Training enough people for such a massive undertaking would take years. Weaver said Purism, founded in 2014, took several years to develop its domestic supply chain. The company's small size means it only needs limited quantities of components, which makes it impossible to achieve the economies of scale that come from producing huge numbers of devices. Manufacturing in the U.S. also comes with higher labor costs than in China. But with the help of automation, those extra costs can be kept to a minimum by reserving human labor for tasks performed after production is complete, such as soldering, assembly, repairs, and testing. Apple, on the other hand, would need vast amounts of components to keep its assembly line humming. While the company would likely be able to cut deals with domestic suppliers for most iPhone parts, some, such as high-quality cameras, may be impossible to quickly source in the U.S. and it would therefore have to import them, Weaver said. One analyst has said iPhones could end up costing $3,500 if made in the U.S., to account for the extra costs and hassles. Weaver agrees that it would cost Apple substantially more to produce iPhones in the U.S., if it had to move production quickly. But given enough time, Apple could substantially reduce the cost after developing a new supply chain, finding enough workers, and by relying on extensive automation. For Apple, opening a domestic manufacturing plant would therefore need to be a years' long process, Weaver said. That's why he criticized Trump's tariffs for taking effect almost immediately. Yes, many of those tariffs have since been delayed. But the takeaway for businesses is that they can't plan ahead. And yet, that's exactly what's required for something as complex as shifting manufacturing to the U.S. Trump's tariffs would be far more effective if phased in over many years, Weaver said. In that scenario, companies would have a clear and increasing incentive to reshore production—without being punished right off the bat. Weaver argues his U.S. manufacturing effort is already paying off and that it will gain momentum over time. He hopes the recent scandal involving U.S. officials using the chat app Signal to discuss a military strike against Yemen, and then accidentally inviting a journalist to join them, will help lift sales by encouraging the federal government to focus more on security. Weaver wouldn't get into the specifics of Purism's financials other than to say it has millions in annual revenue and turned profitable in 2023. The Liberty Phone is its biggest seller. Wayne Lam, an analyst with market research firm TechInsights, gave a mixed take on Purism's prospect. In an email, he said: 'They can be a successful niche player, but the odds of success are lower thanks to the bigger brands. They won't be able to compete in the consumer market but government/enterprise/military are all niche markets they can address.' To fund the expansion of his business, Weaver is trying to raise additional investment after taking in $16 million in funding over the years. Some of that money would go to fixing a shortcoming with his phones. Because they don't use Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, they are incompatible with many of the most popular mobile apps like Uber. To get such apps work on its devices, Purism must make technical tweaks for each one. Purism can at least claim one small advantage over the giant companies that dominate the smartphone industry. If Trump's tariffs become permanent, it won't feel much impact from its U.S.-made phone, while the big players and their foreign-made devices could be hammered. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store