From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Roderick Law

President Donald Trump has hit the ground running, issuing a flurry of executive orders. Two of them are particularly welcome.

The first, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” mandates agencies across the government cease funding and end any activities that would “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” The other, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” requires agencies “to identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the weaponization of the Intelligence Community.”

Each order is necessary, and their issuance so soon after the inauguration shows that Trump understands that censorship and “lawfare” were rampant under his predecessor.

Former President Joe Biden himself (or whoever gave him words to read) gave us a stark reminder of his comfort with censorship in his farewell address, when he warned of the “potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country.”

But Biden was referring to the rise of social media that do not enforce speech codes dictated by one side of the political divide. He went on to complain that we are getting “buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation,” while “[s]ocial media is giving up fact-checking.”

It’s true: Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg saw the election results and realized public toleration for censorship has reached its limit. He is dismantling Facebook’s “fact checking” apparatus and following X’s “community notes” model.

Worse, Zuckerburg is telling tales out of school, recalling how during the pandemic Biden officials would “scream” and “curse” at Facebook employees to remove posts that countered the government line. Tech-industrial complexes are dangerous things if you do not control them.

We can’t forget that government censorship, and its support for research into censorship technologies, is broad and deep. Consider the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working very closely with government personnel. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) discovered they also worked with left-wing activists. The committee was created ostensibly in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic “threats.” It had a “Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information” subcommittee. “Mal-information” is info that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Trump’s order directly calls such efforts a “guise” to censor speech “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” Unfortunately, the committee was the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon and the State Department had their own ties to censorship initiatives.

The same impulse that fostered censorship weaponized Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice(DOJ). Ask pro-life activists facing prison sentences for peaceful demonstrations outside abortion clinics.

Going back further, talk to parents who, FGI discovered, were called racist and transphobic by teachers unions and the Biden Education Department. Or the concerned parents who dared to speak up in school board meetings around the country. Their reward was being called a threat and singled out by the DOJ and FBI. We can be thankful to whoever it was that leaked the FBI memo recommending infiltrating Catholic Mass enthusiast cells.

Trump’s executive order on weaponization will hopefully right some of these wrongs and remind the DOJ and intelligence services that they work for the people. (The president also stripped security clearances from the 51 former intelligence officials who, without evidence, dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a “Russian information operation.”) If nothing else, it will make clear to all, no matter their party, that there are no grey areas and no workarounds when it comes to fundamental constitutional rights.

The federal government has strayed far from its purpose of securing the God-given rights of its citizens. Trump received a mandate from the voters to move it back to the true path, and these orders bring vital reforms. Ideally, Congress will follow suit and pass legislation doing the same, but permanently. As Americans, it is the least we should expect from our government.

Roderick Law is the communications director for the Functional Government Initiative.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Complementary production in Canada and the U.S. boosts energy security

The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Through a vast handshake of pipelines and refineries, Canadian oil and U.S. oil complement each other, strengthening North American energy security.

Here’s why.

Decades in the making

Twenty years ago, the North American energy market looked a lot different than it does today.

In the early 2000s, U.S. oil production had been declining for more than 20 years. By 2005, it dropped to its lowest level since 1949, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

America’s imports of oil from foreign nations were on the rise.

But then, the first of two powerhouse North American oil plays started ramping up.

In Canada’s oil sands, a drilling technology called SAGD – steam-assisted gravity drainage – unlocked enormous resources that could not be economically produced by the established surface mining processes. And the first new mines in nearly 25 years started coming online.

In about 2010, the second massive play – U.S. light, tight oil – emerged on the scene, thanks to hydraulic fracturing technology.

Oil sands production jumped from about one million barrels per day in 2005 to 2.5 million barrels per day in 2015, reaching an average 3.5 million barrels per day last year, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Meanwhile, U.S. oil production skyrocketed from 5.5 million barrels per day in 2005 to 9.4 million barrels per day in 2015 and 13.3 million barrels per day in 2024, according to the EIA.

Together the United States and Canada now produce more oil than anywhere else on earth, according to S&P Global.

As a result, overall U.S. foreign oil imports declined by 35 per cent between 2005 and 2023. But imports from Canada have steadily gone up.

In 2005, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria together supplied 52 per cent of U.S. oil imports. Canada was at just 16 per cent.

In 2024, Canada supplied 62 per cent of American oil imports, with Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela together supplying just 14 per cent, according to the EIA.

“Light” and “heavy” oil

Canadian and U.S. oil production are complementary because they are different from each other in composition.

Canada’s oil exports to the U.S. are primarily “heavy” oil from the oil sands, while U.S. production is primarily “light” oil from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.

One way to think of it is that heavy oil is thick and does not flow easily, while light oil is thin and flows freely – like orange juice compared to fudge.

The components that make the oil like this require different refinery equipment to generate products including gasoline, jet fuel and base petrochemicals.

Of the oil the U.S. imported from Canada from January to October last year, 75 per cent was heavy, six per cent was light, and the remaining 19 per cent was “medium,” which basically has qualities in between the two.

Tailored for Canadian crude

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

Overall, there are about 130 operable oil refineries in the United States, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

The Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission (APMC) estimates that 25 consistently use oil from Alberta.

According to APMC, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

• Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
• Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
• CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
• Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
• Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

Since 2010, virtually 100 per cent of oil imports to the U.S. Midwest have come from Canada, according to the EIA.

In recent years, new pipeline access and crude-by-rail have allowed more Canadian oil to reach refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, rising from about 140,000 barrels per day in 2010 to about 450,000 barrels per day in 2024.

U.S. oil exports

The United States banned oil exports from 1975 to the end of 2015. Since, exports have surged, averaging 4.1 million barrels per day last year, according to the EIA.

That is nearly equivalent to the 4.6 million barrels per day of Canadian oil imported into the U.S. over the same time period, indicating that Canadian crude imports enable sales of U.S. oil to global markets.

Future outlook

Twenty-five years from now, the U.S. will need to import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA.