Connect with us

Energy

‘Take On The Resistance’: Who Could Trump Tap To Help Cement His ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Agenda?

Published

1 year ago

13 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Former President Donald Trump has promised to revitalize and unleash the American energy sector if he returns to the White House in 2025, and has a plethora of former officials and new faces he could tap for key executive branch roles.

The Biden administration has utilized executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to implement many of the key policies driving its sprawling climate agenda. These agencies will be crucial to any effort by a prospective Trump administration to undo President Joe Biden’s energy legacy and execute Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda.

Several insiders with extensive experience in Republican energy politics speculated to the Daily Caller News Foundation as to who Trump could pick to lead that charge if he wins in November.

“I am really impressed by the number of former Trump officials, as well as people who have not served before who are also interested in doing so in the future who have reached out to inquire about my prior experience or the process,” David Bernhardt, who served as the secretary of the interior during the latter half of Trump’s first term, told the DCNF. “If President Trump wins, he’s going to have droves of capable people to choose from to fill his political appointments this time around — a lot of seasoned veterans, and also a lot of people with new, fresh ideas. I think that’s very exciting and bodes well for the president’s second term and for our country.”

However, the Trump campaign told the DCNF that internal discussions about who may fill these roles have not started.

“There have been no such discussions about who will serve in a second Trump Administration,” Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told the DCNF. “When the time comes, President Trump will choose the best possible people to implement his America First agenda.”

Whoever Trump selects to lead the EPA will have to confront an agency that has been juiced with thousands of new employees and promulgated numerous major regulations. The Biden administration has used the EPA to advance some of its most aggressive environmental policies, which include a major green power plants regulation, electric vehicle (EV) mandates, stringent fine particulate matter emissions rules and more.

At least some of these rules figure to be on the chopping block if Trump returns to office, as the former president has already pledged to walk back EV regulations.

Andrew Wheeler, who helmed the agency between 2019 and 2021, could be tapped to take the reins again if Trump wins in November, one energy expert, who wishes to not be publicly identified, speculated to the DCNF.

Others who may be under consideration include Mandy Gunasekara, who served variously as EPA chief of staff, principal deputy assistant administrator and senior policy advisor during Trump’s first term.

“I have a beautiful community in Oxford, Mississippi, and it would be very hard to leave. Plus, the idea of going back into a hostile situation away from my children and the ‘Bible girls’ is hard pill to pill to swallow. Ultimately, that’s a bridge I’ll cross if I get there,” Gunasekara told the DCNF. “Andrew Wheeler is a very experienced leader at EPA and would no doubt faithfully execute the President’s agenda again.”

Myron Ebell, a recently-retired energy policy expert formerly at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a member of the Trump EPA transition team, believes that Gunasekara and Wheeler “would both be great choices,” he told the DCNF.

“I think it’s inappropriate to discuss a position I may be offered,” Wheeler told the DCNF when contacted for this story.

Another name to watch is Anne Vogel, who currently runs the Ohio EPA, according to the energy expert. Prior to taking that role, Vogel worked for the American Electric Power Company, handling federal regulatory matters in Washington, and she also has experience working at a private law firm.

“Director Anne Vogel currently has no intention of leaving her position at Ohio EPA,” a spokesperson for the agency told the DCNF.

Notably, Vogel testified to Congress in March 2023 about the train derailment and subsequent chemical burn-off that marred the skies of East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023.

“I think that we’re going to need people that are committed to reforming these agencies and advancing the Trump agenda, which is basically unleashing the energy sector, and that includes the coal industry, oil and gas and everything else,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and a former member of the Trump EPA transition team, told the DCNF. “They’ve got to be willing to take on the resistance. And in Trump one, people weren’t necessarily willing or prepared to take on the resistance, and there’s going to be a lot of resistance.” 

‘Full Speed Ahead’

As the agency in charge of managing America’s federally-controlled lands and waters, DOI has a major role to play in the American energy sector given that it leases millions of onshore and offshore acres to oil and gas developers. Under Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, DOI has taken numerous actions to restrict development on millions of acres of American land and issued a bare-bones leasing schedule for offshore oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

In light of Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill,” the DOI’s approach to natural resource management is likely to change dramatically from its current attitude as part of the Biden administration.

Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told the DCNF to keep an eye on Republican Govs. Mike Dunleavy of Alaska and Doug Burgum of North Dakota as possible leaders of DOI under a prospective second Trump presidency. However, Burgum may be in play for other positions, such as secretary of the interior or perhaps a high-level White House role, Pyle told the DCNF.

A representative for Burgum referred the DCNF to the Trump campaign.

Both McKenna and Ebell indicated that Bernhardt could be a good fit to return to the top job at DOI should he and Trump have mutual interest. For his part, Bernhardt declined to comment about whether he wants to get back into the fray or specific roles he would ostensibly have interest in filling during a second Trump term.

Pyle said he does not expect Trump to feel an obligation to stick to the establishment when selecting his political appointees.

“It’s clear with President Trump’s vice presidential pick [J.D. Vance] that he no longer feels compelled to extend an olive branch to the GOP establishment,” Pyle told the DCNF. “It’s Trump’s party now, and he chose someone who he thinks will best help implement his agenda.”

Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist with extensive energy sector experience, agreed that Dunleavy and Burgum could each be the type of person to run the DOI for Trump if called upon to do so.

“I hope they will go full speed ahead on restoring or increasing energy production in the federal estate” regardless of who Trump might pick for the top job if he wins, Ebell told the DCNF. “But I also hope that they will focus and put some effort into improving federal land management.”

Ebell floated former Alaska Republican Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell as a possibility should he have interest. He also said that Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah would both do well in the position, in his view, but that they may both be too valuable as seasoned legislators to make the jump to the executive branch.

“Senator Barrasso is focused on working for the people of Wyoming and passing President Trump’s agenda in the U.S. Senate,” a Barrasso spokesperson told the DCNF.

‘Dark Horse’

Choosing a successor for Jennifer Granholm to lead the DOE will be another key decision for Trump should he prevail this November.

Among other initiatives, the Biden DOE has pushed regulations promoting energy efficient appliances, a broad building decarbonization agenda and sought to loan huge sums of taxpayer cash to green energy companies since 2021.

McKenna, who is plugged into both the energy industry and GOP politics, flagged several possible candidates to look out for.

Paul Dabbar, who served as the under secretary for science at DOE during Trump’s first term, could be an option, with McKenna pointing to his managerial skills as a strength that could appeal to Trump. Dabbar declined to comment when contacted for this story.

McKenna also identified Burgum as a possible option for DOE, but like Pyle, McKenna believes that Burgum could be called on to take any number of roles, stretching from DOE to the White House or even the Department of Commerce, should he have interest in serving in a possible second Trump administration.

One “dark horse” possibility to watch is Bill Cooper, who currently works for Golden Pass LNG as vice president and general counsel, McKenna said. In addition to his private sector mettle, Cooper has experience at DOE, having served in the agency for about two years in various senior roles during Trump’s first term, making him a possible candidate should he have interest in the gig.

Ebell is not discounting the possibility that Trump may dip into the private sector to find his potential energy secretary.

“I think looking in the private sector makes sense,” Ebell told the DCNF. “It makes a lot of sense if it’s somebody who isn’t part of the subsidy chain, who isn’t part of the corporate welfare world, special interests who get money under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, or other DOE programs.”

Cooper, Treadwell, Lee’s office and Dunleavy’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Energy / 27 mins ago

National media energy attacks: Bureau chiefs or three major Canadian newspapers woefully misinformed about pipelines

COVID-19 / 41 mins ago

Canadian veteran challenges conviction for guarding War Memorial during Freedom Convoy

RCMP / 4 hours ago

Police arrest thieves using garage-door openers to access homes in Vanier, West Park, Anders Park, and Evergreen

Energy

National media energy attacks: Bureau chiefs or three major Canadian newspapers woefully misinformed about pipelines

Published on October 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

These three allegedly well informed national opinion-shapers are incredibly ignorant of national energy realities.

In a recent episode of CPAC PrimeTime Politics, three bureau chiefs from three major Canadian newspapers discussed the fracas between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Smith government plans to submit a proposal to Ottawa to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast. The episode underscored the profound disconnect between these major journalistic gatekeepers and the realities of energy policy in Canada.

First out of the gate, the Globe and Mail’s Robert Fife made the (false) argument that we already have the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX), which is only running at 70 per cent, so we don’t need additional pipelines. This variant of the “no market case” argument misunderstands both the economics of running pipelines and the reality of how much oilsands production can increase to supply foreign markets if—and only if—there’s a way to get it there.

In reality, since the TMX expansion entered service, about 80 per cent of the system’s capacity is reserved for long-term contracts by committed shippers, and the rest is available on a monthly basis for spot shippers who pay higher rates due largely to government-imposed costs of construction. From June 2024 to June 2025, committed capacity was fully utilized each month, averaging 99 per cent utilization. Simply put, TMX is essentially fully subscribed and flowing at a high percentage of its physical capacity.

And the idea that we don’t need additional capacity is also silly. According to S&P Global, Canadian oilsands production will reach a record annual average production of 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d), and by 2030 could top 3.9 million b/d (that’s 500,000 b/d higher than 2024). Without pipeline expansion, this growth may not happen. Alberta’s government, which is already coordinating with pipeline companies such as Enbridge, hopes to see oilsands production double in coming years.

Next, Mia Rabson, Ottawa deputy bureau chief of the Canadian Press, implied that Smith’s proposal is not viable because it comes from government, not the private sector. But Rabson neglected to say that it would be foolish for any company to prepare a very expensive project proposal in light of current massive regulatory legislative barriers (tanker ban off B.C. coast, oil and gas emission cap, etc.). Indeed, proposal costs can run into the billions.

Finally, Joel-Denis Bellavance, Ottawa bureau chief of La Presse, opined that a year ago “building a pipeline was not part of the national conversation.” Really? On what planet? How thick is the bubble around Quebec? Is it like bulletproof Perspex? This is a person helping shape Quebec opinion on pipelines in Western Canada, and if we take him at his word, he doesn’t know that pipelines and energy infrastructure have been on the agenda for quite some time now.

If these are the gatekeepers of Canadian news in central Canada, it’s no wonder that the citizenry seems so woefully uninformed about the need to build new pipelines, to move Alberta oil and gas to foreign markets beyond the United States, to strengthen Canada’s economy and to employ in many provinces people who don’t work in the media.

Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Back Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy

Published on October 22, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.

In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

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!

The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.

Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.

Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.

For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.

“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.

John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.

“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.

What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.

As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.

Continue Reading

Trending

X