Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Daily Caller

‘It’s Gonna End On Day One’: GOP Lawmakers, Fishermen Urge Trump To Keep Promise To Axe Offshore Wind

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Adam Pack

Critics of the offshore wind industry are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep his campaign promise of ending federal support for offshore wind on his first day in office.

Trump’s return to the Oval Office may deal the problem-riddled offshore wind industry another blow if his administration follows through on his pledge to scrap federal support for offshore wind projects during his second term. Republican lawmakers, opposed to heavily subsidized green energy, and commercial fishermen, who view the industry as an existential threat to their livelihoods, are calling on the president-elect to follow through on his campaign’s promise, which could imply ending federal subsidies and lease sales for the industry.

“We are going to make sure that [offshore wind] ends on day one. I’m gonna write it out in an executive order,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters at a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11. “It’s gonna end on day one.”

Since January 2021, the Biden-Harris administration has approved ten offshore wind projects at commercial scale and conducted six offshore wind lease sales, including one held just last week in the Gulf of Maine that was criticized by the commercial fishing industry as part of President Joe Biden’s wider climate agenda. Offshore wind has notably suffered from inflation headwindsproject cancellations and souring public opinion despite the Biden administration’s embrace of the industry.

“I have no doubt that a second Trump administration will do the right thing for Americans by scrapping the Biden-Harris offshore wind agenda,” Republican New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a vocal critic of the offshore wind industry, told the DCNF. “These projects are a burden on our economy, harm local communities and are nothing but a political payoff to special interests. President Trump understands that true energy independence and prosperity come from American oil, gas, solar and especially nuclear energy, through a balanced energy policy — not from wasteful wind projects that put our economy and environment at risk.”

“I think it’s a very wise decision,” Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told the DCNF. “We are wasting money, and the worst part is that all that money is going to foreign wind companies because there are no American wind companies. They’re all foreign companies that are making billions of dollars off the American energy ratepayer.”

The Vineyard Wind energy project, jointly owned by a Danish investment firm and a Spanish utility, earned Republican lawmakers’ ire in July when debris from one of the project’s turbine blades — which stretches longer than the Statue of Liberty — washed up on Massachusetts’ beaches after breaking apart and falling into the ocean.

“We should never allow foreign owned companies to control our energy supply — much less harm our environment while doing it,” Harris wrote on X.

The New England Fisherman’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), a commercial fishing industry group that organized a “flotilla protest” at the site of the broken Vineyard Wind turbine in August, is calling on the Trump administration to walk back on Biden’s goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. The group is also advocating for the incoming Trump administration to “delist unleased wind energy areas” off the coast of New England and the mid-Atlantic.

NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman told the DCNF that he’s optimistic that the Trump administration will be “a voice of reason” on offshore wind, which he claimed would be a welcome departure from the previous administration, whom he accused of prioritizing green energy goals over fishermen’s livelihoods and the health of the marine environment.

“The incoming administration has an historic opportunity to save American workers from foreign developers, reinvigorate iconic coastal towns, and improve America’s food security,” NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman said in a press release following Trump’s election win.

The Trump administration may also seek to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies that offshore wind projects are eligible for, which could make the industry’s continued growth off the Atlantic coast not as economically viable, according to Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute.

“I would expect the prospects of offshore wind to dim once the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act are repealed,” Fischer told the DCNF. “The high cost of offshore wind is unavoidable. State and federal subsidies can mask the cost by shifting it to the tax base, but ultimately either ratepayers or taxpayers will bear the significantly above-market cost of offshore wind in the states that mandate it.”

Offshore wind developers and wind turbine makers’ stock prices substantially decreased on Wednesday following news of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ defeat the previous night.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Crime

‘We’re Going To Lose’: Steve Bannon Warns Withholding Epstein Files Would Doom GOP

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Cohen

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon warned on Friday that Republicans would suffer major losses if President Donald Trump’s administration does not move to release documents related to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and associations.

Axios reported on Sunday that a two-page memo showed the Department Of Justice (DOJ) and FBI found no evidence Epstein kept a “client list” or was murdered, but public doubts have continued. Bannon said on “Bannon’s War Room” that failure to release information would lead to the dissipation of one-tenth of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and significant losses for the Republican Party in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“It’s not about just a pedophile ring and all that, it’s about who governs us, right? And that’s why it’s not going to go away … For this to go away, you’re going to lose 10% of the MAGA movement,” Bannon said. “If we lose 10% of the MAGA movement right now, we’re going to lose 40 seats in ’26, we’re going to lose the [presidency]. They don’t even have to steal it, which they’re going to try to do in ’28, because they’re going to sit there and they go, ‘They’ve disheartened the hardest-core populist nationalists’ — that’s always been who governs us.”

Bannon also demanded the publication of all the Epstein documents on “Bannon’s War Room” Thursday. He called on the DOJ to go to court and push for the release of the documents or for Trump to appoint a special counsel to manage the publication.

Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with sex trafficking. Shortly after, he was found dead in his New York Metropolitan Correctional Center cell shortly after. Officials asserted that he hanged himself in his cell.

However, Epstein’s death has sparked years of theories because of the malfunctioning of prison cameras, along with guards admitting to falsifying documents about checking on the then-inmate. The DOJ inspector general later confirmed that multiple surveillance cameras outside of his cell were inoperable, while others captured the common area outside his door.

Both Bannon and Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson have speculated that Epstein had connections to intelligence agencies.

Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta allegedly indicated that Epstein was tied to intelligence, according to Vicky Ward in The Daily Beast.

Continue Reading

Business

UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Craig Rucker

According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.

Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes.  In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste.  “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.

As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts reportBreaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.

But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.

Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.

This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.

The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.

Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.

What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.

Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.

Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.

With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification.  Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme.  Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers.  Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.

Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

Continue Reading

Trending

X