From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ireland Owens

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to “drill, baby, drill” in his upcoming administration appears to have American energy firms eagerly awaiting his return, according to a new survey.

On numerous occasions, Trump vowed to unleash American oil and made achieving “energy dominance” a key aspect of his next administration’s agenda. Responding to an anonymous survey conducted by the Dallas Federal Reserve, several energy executives said that they are optimistically awaiting the former president’s return to office, with many citing “positive regulatory changes” in their responses.

The survey noted a dramatic decline in its “outlook uncertainty index” with one respondent explaining, “The outcome of the 2024 presidential election removes the risk of the unknown.”

“There is more optimism looking at first quarter 2025 than first quarter 2024,” one respondent wrote. “Much of 2024 felt like a waiting game … We think the election results will be good for activity even if it’s just because operators and service companies have a clear direction for planning.”

“We are encouraged that the new administration in Washington, D.C., will enact some positive regulatory changes for offshore drilling in the U.S.,” another wrote.

President Joe Biden and Trump have had vastly different approaches to domestic energy policies, though one survey respondent claiming that the shifting political landscape is “helpful insofar as regulations,” considering Trump is likely to reduce the regulatory burden on oil firms. For this reason, many energy executives have in the past criticized Biden’s energy policy.

From his very first day in office, Biden has led a massive push to curb greenhouse gas emissions as part of his signature climate agenda. Biden introduced the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which unlocked hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize various green energy projects. Trump has vowed to redirect unspent funding from the IRA, and previously dubbed the climate law “the green new scam.”

More recently, reports have surfaced claiming that Biden is considering a permanent ban on additional offshore drilling in some federal waters ahead of Trump’s return to office, potentially aiming to hamstring the incoming president’s energy plans.

“The recent election result is changing outlooks,” one respondent wrote. “The new administration will lift regulations, stop subsiding [subsidizing] green energy and seek LNG build-outs to place more demand on natural gas.”

While on the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 election, Trump pledged to revamp the U.S. energy sector, and repeatedly promised to “drill, baby drill” in a bid to increase domestic oil and gas production.

“We’re assuming that the new administration will encourage more development of oil and gas projects,” one survey respondent wrote.

In November, Trump nominated North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to head the Department of the Interior and Chairman of a new National Energy Council. The president-elect praised Burgum in a post on Truth Social, stating that he would play a key role in overseeing the “path to U.S. energy dominance.”

Additionally, Trump announced in November 2024 the nomination of Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy and as a member of the new energy council. The president-elect said in a Truth Social post that Wright is a “bold advocate who brings rational thought to the energy dialogue.”

The Dallas Federal Reserve’s survey data was collected from Dec. 11–19, and included 134 energy firm respondents.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Frank Ricci

In the United States, where freedom of speech is not just a privilege but rather the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy, our First Amendment rights are at stake in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education.

In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an Ohio school district could enact a code of conduct requiring students to refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity –– i.e., mandating the use of “preferred pronouns.” The ruling effectively compels speech from school-aged children that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex. The Olentangy Local School District’s policy must be struck down.

Thankfully, not all bad decisions stick. Two weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc, a signal that a majority of the circuit’s judges may wish to reconsider the panel’s earlier July ruling. Regardless of the outcome, the loser is likely to file for review before the Supreme Court in the 2026 Term.

The stakes are high as the Sixth Circuit prepares to rule on a case that tees up yet another hot-button debate about pronoun policies, parental rights, religious liberty, and free speech in public schools.

This case is about more than policy. It encompasses the very essence of what it means to be free in thought and expression, particularly in our educational institutions.

The Olentangy Local School District has enacted rules seeking to dictate how students refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity, effectively compelling speech that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex.

This is more than administrative overreach; it is an assault on students’ First Amendment rights to express their views on sex and gender without fear of coercion or reprisal.

That is why Yankee Institute has joined an amicus brief filed by Advancing American Freedom (AAF) to challenge this unconstitutional intrusion on free speech.

Those imposing such policies often argue that they create a psychologically “safe” environment for all students. But perceived “safety” for some should not come at the expense of freedom for all. The policy at issue does not limit itself to the constitutionally permissible goal of preventing harassment; instead, it imposes a new linguistic (and social) orthodoxy to which students must conform or else be punished.

As George Orwell warned, those who can control language can manipulate thought. The left understands this principle well, as demonstrated in Orwell’s novel “1984,” where Newspeak was enforced to narrow the population’s range of thought.

Such manipulation is not the role of public schools. Schools are supposed to be forums for debate, not indoctrination centers where only one viewpoint is tolerated. Unfortunately, all too often, they have become ground zero for identity politics, with teachers’ unions imposing their ideological agendas rather than providing the real skills our children need.

When a district like Olentangy decides to punish students for expressing beliefs about the immutability of sex, viewpoint discrimination is clearly at play. This is antithetical to the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines, where it affirmed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

What is more, the policy’s enforcement could lead to a chilling effect on speech, where students would self-censor rather than risk punishment for using language that aligns with their personal beliefs.

This is not just about pronouns; it is about the broader implications for educating youth on tolerance, diversity and the respectful expression of differing opinions.

Olentangy’s policy fails to meet the stringent requirements set forth by the Supreme Court’s precedent on content-based restrictions. The evidence cited by the school district to justify these restrictions — newspaper stories, law review articles and therapist quotes — lacks the substantial proof of disruption necessary to override First Amendment protections.

As seen in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., discomfort or upset among students, without more, does not constitute the “substantial disorder” needed to justify speech restrictions.

If school administrators are handed the power to regulate speech, we are teaching our children — and society at large — that we value conformity over individual conscience. This case isn’t about protecting a minority from perceived offense; it is about safeguarding the rights of all students to freedom of speech and conscience, even (or especially!) when it is unpopular or contravenes current cultural trends.

It is time to remind our schools that they exist to maintain the spirit of free inquiry, not to enforce a singular, forced narrative on identity. Let’s ensure that American schools remain places where students can debate, learn and grow into informed citizens who cherish liberty over compelled conformity.

As Emily Dickenson stated: “Truth is such a rare thing, it is delightful to tell it.”

For the sake of our nation’s future, we must protect each individual’s freedom to speak truth as he or she sees it.

Frank Ricci is a Fellow at Yankee Institute and was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Ricci v Destefano. He retired as a Battalion Chief in New Haven CT. He has testified before Congress and is the author of the book, Command Presence.