Kamala Harris Would Be A Total Disaster For American Energy

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

President Dwight Eisenhower once declared that “pessimism never won any battle.” Yet, many Americans are understandably pessimistic these days.

Families are worried about how to put gas in the tank and food on the table. Most Americans feel that the American Dream is out of reach. As our nation faces mounting challenges, our leaders need to offer a positive vision for our future that Americans can believe in.

The United States is blessed with vast energy resources that can power our economy with affordable, reliable energy. Getting the government out of the way is a good place to start unleashing American energy in a way that will reverberate throughout the economy. This is key to bringing the American Dream back within reach.

Unfortunately, today’s reality is that the Left’s apocalyptic vision of a climate crisis is the kind of pessimism that loses battles. The Biden-Harris administration’s whole-of-government war on energy perpetuates a very bleak vision of our nation’s future.

As the United States regulates hydrocarbon production out of business, our manufacturing jobs move abroad and we become reliant on foreign sources of energy. This not only harms our economic and national security, but these foreign sources also fail to meet our stringent environmental standards for production at home.

Instead of producing abundant American energy, we look to OPEC+ for hydrocarbons and increase our dependence on China for needed critical mineral production. Meanwhile, China emits more greenhouse gasses than all developed nations combined.

The Paris Agreement, which President Joe Biden rejoined, has the United States pay Beijing, even as they continue to increase emissions. At home, American standards of living move backward; the government limits everything from what kind of car we can drive to what kind of stove we can cook on. Air-conditioning and air travel become accessible only to the rich.

This is a far cry from delivering the American Dream and is unpopular with voters. As a result, Vice President Kamala Harris has recently pursued an energy messaging strategy that Reuters has kindly termed “strategically ambiguous” and The Washington Post has deemed “climate silence.”

To those paying attention, the Democrat nominee’s “climate silence” is a deafening contrast to her unambiguous record of commitment to radical climate policies throughout her career.

As a senator, Harris advanced a $10 trillion Green New Deal and even supported removing the filibuster to pass it. As a 2020 presidential candidate, she proudly declared her opposition to fracking. Her current campaign disavowed this position but has failed to explain this shift. When asked in her one sit-down interview, Vice President Harris continued her strategic ambiguity, noting only that her “values haven’t changed.”

And despite public flip-flopping, her record as vice president bolsters the conclusion that her anti-energy bent is consistent. As vice president, she holds a critical role in this administration’s whole-of-government war on energy. She was the tie-breaking vote on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which supercharged inflation to give “green” handouts to corporations and pet projects. Yet her nomination acceptance speech failed to mention energy at all and mentioned climate only once in passing. This is a telling omission from the Democrat nominee.

There is a clear logic to hiding the ball as she seeks to appeal to both energy voters in Pennsylvania and her radical climate base. Further, as the Washington Post observed, Vice President Harris’s climate policies contrast with the desire “to paint a rosy picture of the future.”

The Post is correct in calling this pessimistic vision a “lose-lose” messaging issue.

This is because, at its heart, this is a lose-lose policy proposition.

Fortunately, there is a win-win policy that offers both prosperity and environmental protection. We must unleash American energy and allow all energy sources to compete on a level playing field. We must remove burdensome government barriers and allow American ingenuity and free-market principles to drive innovation.

This is positive policy with a proven track record.

In 2019, building on the incredible innovations of the shale revolution and the pro-energy policies of the Trump administration, the United States became a net energy exporter for the first time in nearly 70 years. At the same time, this country had the largest net reduction of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the world. Throughout the Trump administration, the United States also reduced air pollution by 7%.

American energy means we can liberate ourselves and our allies from depending on nations like Russia and China. We can protect the environment and improve the lives of Americans.

Put simply, an America First approach to energy means we can embrace the spirit of the American Dream.

This is a realistic policy vision that also paints a brighter picture of our future. Americans deserve clarity, not ambiguity. They deserve the opportunity to achieve the American Dream, starting with energy freedom.

Carla Sands is a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark. She currently serves as vice chair of the Center for Energy & Environment at the America First Policy Institute.

Up Next

FACT CHECK: Who’s to blame for high grocery, energy, other costs?

Don't Miss

‘They’re Gonna Pay For It’: A Texas Billionaire May Be About To Force Greenpeace USA Into Bankruptcy

Todayville

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

Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream

Business / 2 hours ago

I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick

Daily Caller / 12 hours ago

Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Business

I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick

Published on November 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Joe Duarte

Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to fund invalid, ideologically driven “scientific” research that subsidizes leftist activists and harms conservatives and the American people at large. There’s currently no plan to stop.

Conversely, NIH does not fund obvious research topics that would help the American people, because of institutional leftist bias.

While serving as a senior advisor at NIH, I discovered many active grants like these:

“Examining Anti-Racist Healing in Nature to Protect Telomeres of Transitional Age BIPOC for Health Equity” — Take minority teens to parks in a bid to reduce telomere erosion (the shortening of repetitive DNA sequences as we age). $3.8 million in five years and no results published – not surprising, given their absurd premise.

“Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults” – This rests on an invalid leftist ideological concept – “microaggressions.” An example of a “microaggression” is a white person denying he’s racist. They can’t be validly measured since they’re simply defined into existence by Orwellian leftist ideology, with no attempt to discover the alleged aggressor’s motives.

“Influence of Social Media, Social Networks, and Misinformation on Vaccine Acceptance Among Black and Latinx Individuals” — from an activist who said the phrase “The coronavirus is genetically engineered” was “misinformation” and also conducted a bizarre, partisan study based entirely on a Trump tweet about recovering from COVID.

I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020

The study claimed that people saw COVID as less “serious” after the tweet. I apologize for the flashback to when Democrats demanded everyone feel the exact level of COVID panic and anti-optimism they felt (and share their false beliefs on the efficacy of school closures, masks, and vaccines ). NIH funded this study and gave him another $651,586 in July for his new “misinformation” study, including $200,000 from the Office of the Director.

I’m a social psychologist who has focused on the harms of ideological bias in academic research. Our sensemaking institutions have been gashed by a cult political ideology that treats its conjectures and abstractions as descriptively true, without argument or even explanation, and enforces conformity with inhumane psychologizing and ostracism. This ideology – which dominates academia and NIH – poses an unprecedented threat to our connection to reality, and thus to science, by vaporizing the distinction between descriptive reality and ideological tenets.

In March, I emailed Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, and pitched him on how I could build an objective framework to eliminate ideological bias in NIH-funded research.

Jay seemed to agree with my analysis. We spoke on the phone, and I started in May as a senior advisor to Jay in the Office of the Director (NIH-OD).

I never heard from Jay again beyond a couple of cursory replies.

For four months, I read tons of grants, passed a lengthy federal background check, started to build the pieces, and contacted Jay about once a week with questions, follow-up, and example grants. Dead air – he was ghosting me.

Jay also bizarrely deleted the last two months’ worth of my messages to him but kept the older ones. I’d sent him a two-page framework summary, asked if I should keep working on it, and also asked if I’d done something wrong, given his persistent lack of response. No response.

In September, the contractors working at NIH-OD, me included, were laid off. No explanation was given.

I have no idea what happened here. It’s been the strangest and most unprofessional experience of my career.

The result is that NIH is still funding ideological, scientifically invalid research and will continue to ignore major topics because of leftist bias. We have a precious opportunity for lasting reform, and that opportunity will be lost without a systematic approach to eliminating ideology in science.

What’s happened so far is that DOGE cut some grants earlier this year, after a search for DEI terms. It was a good first step but caught some false positives and missed most of the ideological research, including many grants premised on “microaggressions,” “systemic racism,” “intersectionality,” and other proprietary, question-begging leftist terms. Leftist academics are already adapting by changing their terminology – this meme is popular on Bluesky:

DOGE didn’t have the right search terms, and a systematic, objective anti-bias framework is necessary to do the job. It’s also more legally resilient and persuasive to reachable insiders — there’s no way to reform a huge bureaucracy without getting buy-in from some insiders (yes, you also have to fire some people). This mission requires empowered people at every funding agency who are thoroughly familiar with leftist ideology, can cleanly define “ideology,” and build robust frameworks to remove it from scientific research.

My framework identifies four areas of bias so far:

Ideological research
Rigged research
Ideological denial of science / suppression of data
Missing research – research that would happen if not for leftist bias

The missing research at NIH likely hurts the most — e.g. American men commit suicide at unusually high rates, especially white and American Indian men, yet NIH funds no research on this. But they do fund “Hypertension Self-management in Refugees Living in San Diego.”

Similarly, NIH is AWOL on the health benefits of religious observance and prayer, a promising area of research that Muslim countries are taking the lead on. These two gaping holes suggest that NIH is indifferent to the American people and even culturally and ideologically hostile them.

Joe Duarte grew up in small copper-mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. You can find his work here, find him on X here, and contact him at gravity at protonmail.com.

Daily Caller

Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Published on November 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

President Donald Trump is turning up the heat on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal to end his war with Russia, and has set a deadline with potential consequences.

The U.S. is warning that certain weapons shipments and intelligence sharing could be at risk if Zelenskyy does not play ball with Trump’s peace proposal, Reuters reported on Friday. The president set a Thanksgiving deadline for Zelenskyy to sign off on the details. Speaking with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio, Trump confirmed that date, saying that while deadlines can be extended, “Thursday is it.”

Speaking with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio, Trump confirmed that, though deadlines can be extended, “Thursday is it.”

Zelenskyy signaled his willingness to discuss concessions outlined in the proposed peace deal despite objections from other European leaders over the terms, and said in a post on X that his whole government is at work on the individual points. However, the Ukrainian leader also said in a Friday video statement that the U.S. has put Ukraine in a position of “either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, said Friday Trump’s plan could “form the basis” for a final peace agreement.

A U.S. official told the Daily Caller News Foundation they “will not comment on sensitive peace discussions that may or may not have happened.”

“President Trump is working with both sides to end the war as quickly as possible, which has gone on for far too long, with too many senseless deaths,” the official said. “This would have never happened if he was President.”

Zelenskyy most recently has been embroiled in a corruption scandal, as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine launched a probe into Zelenskyy’s business partner, who allegedly laundered $100 million from Ukraine’s nuclear energy company.

“It was strongly implied to the Ukrainians that the United States expects them to agree to a peace deal,” another U.S. official told the DCNF. “Any changes will be decided upon by the President himself.”

The Ukrainian leader has been working to shore up support in Europe as well, most recently signing a deal with France to obtain 100 Rafale jets for its air force. The deal also included anti-air equipment, drones and other munitions.

The Trump administration has worked to offload direct military support for Ukraine to partners in Europe, with NATO agreeing to purchase U.S. weapons to then ship to Ukraine, instead of the American government delivering directly.