Australia-based energy firm Woodside announced Monday plans to invest $17 billion in a new liquefied natural gas export facility to be sited in south Louisiana. Company CEO and Managing Director Meg O’Neill said the Louisiana LNG facility represents the single largest greenfield energy project investment, and the largest foreign direct investment in the state’s history.
In a release, the company said the project will support 15,000 jobs during the construction phase and, when completed, will sport a total export capacity of more than 27 million tons per annum of LNG. Originally named the Driftwood LNG project by previous owner Tellurian, Woodside acquired the project in 2024 for just $900 million.
The timing of Woodside’s announcement on Monday, which represented the 99th day of President Donald Trump’s second administration, serves to symbolize the impressive success the President and his senior appointees have had in completely changing the energy and climate policy debate in the U.S. across their first 100 days. Nowhere has this sea change in policy been more obvious than as it relates to the LNG export industry.
When Trump was sworn into office on January 20, America’s LNG sector had spent the previous 358 days as a target of demonization by former President Joe Biden and his senior officials. That stemmed from the decision by the White House to implement a so-called “pause” in permitting of new LNG facilities like Louisiana LNG on January 27 last year. Prior to last November’s election, that pause appeared destined to become a permanent feature of federal policy had Kamala Harris won the presidency.
President Trump canceled the Biden pause with a Day 1 executive order, and the industry has since resumed the pace of rapid expansion that had made it one of America’s great growth industries prior to Biden’s irrational move last year.
The resumption of the LNG industry’s rapid growth path is just one of many success stories which Trump’s energy team of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin can point to at the end of this first 100 days time period.
At Interior, Secretary Burgum can point to his efforts to return the federal oil and gas leasing program to normal order both onshore and offshore after four years of its being held hostage by Biden’s Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. He can also highlight last week’s announcement detailing efforts to speed up permitting approvals related requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Zeldin is able to point to his effort to freeze $20 billion in highly questionable grants awarded by his predecessor, Michael Regan, during the final days of the Biden presidency, and claw them back a major savings. He has also embarked on a study focused on the potential reversal of the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, a finding that classifies carbon dioxide, the fundamental building block for all life on Planet Earth, as a pollutant which can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. A successful reversal of that finding could lead to the restoration of honesty in air quality regulation and a focus on elimination of real pollution, which was the intent of the law as it was passed by congress.
Secretary Wright has less ability to directly impact regulatory polices to the nature of his job, but he has become the most effective spokesman for commonsense energy policies to ever hold the Energy Secretary position. He has not shied away from taking on controversial topics, like the need to revitalize the nation’s coal industry to take advantage of America’s enormous wealth of that resource. Wright has also been very blunt and effective in highlighting the role the wind industry has played in forcing consumer utility costs up to all-time highs under the Biden administration.
Taken as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more impactful 100 days related to energy and climate policy than this administration has achieved. Trump’s legion of critics won’t agree with the direction he and his appointees have taken, but they can’t honestly claim they aren’t producing major results. For Trump and his team, it is a simple case of promises made, promises kept.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
For the past decade, our organization has been fighting the Green New Deal agenda in Arizona, working to score a decisive victory for reliable and affordable energy. Thanks to President Trump, that decisive victory now appears within reach.
Earlier this month, President Trump released three new executive orders and one proclamation, all aimed at unleashing American energy abundance. These executive actions are all part of a coordinated White House effort to initiate a tidal shift in the ever-steady march toward the Net Zero nightmare being pursued by radical environmentalists, the green industrial complex, and public utilities across the nation.
For years, energy regulators have forewarned of the impending grid crisis due to the overreliance on costly renewable energy, yet the previous administration only accelerated the catastrophe. The new Trump Executive Orders, coupled with his declaration of a National Energy Emergency, will directly address this crisis by ending the regulatory discrimination against coal, empowering the domestic mining of coal resources, encouraging the development of coal energy generation, and allowing for these activities to take place on federal lands.
Reigniting the American coal industry couldn’t happen soon enough. While China and India are building new coal plants at unprecedented rates to power their economic growth, we have been aggressively shutting our plants down…
Like a cruise ship steaming toward an iceberg, America’s economy is headed for disaster.
The federal government reports an interest-bearing debt of $37 trillion. However, the actual unfunded obligations of the government, according to the Medicare and Social Security Trustees’ reports, is an unfathomable $158.6 trillion.
Yet the band plays on. In the latest game of chicken to avoid the dreaded but largely imaginary “government shut down,” Democrats stood fast on the theory that their electoral success depends on shipping the maximum number of dollars out the door. Republicans once again proved an inadequate bulwark. Those taking a principled stand against business as usual were denominated “far-right obstructionists” and run over.
The current Republican plan combines a $4.5 trillion tax cut with doubtful spending reductions of $2 trillion, a plan the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will eventually raise the interest-bearing debt to $60 trillion. Reminder: the Rs are the cost-cutting party.
Trump’s deficit-busting credentials are suspect. During his first term, he added debt at twice the annual rate than Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, he has unleashed a dramatic program of mass firings, contract canceling, and agency reduction/elimination.
Serious cost cutters know that the most effective strategy is to cut where the fiscal impact is high relative to the resistance produced. The DOGE strategy is the exact opposite, already producing highly publicized and resented cuts with no possibility, even if fully implemented, of resolving our debt crisis.
The elimination of all federal civilian employees, no matter how useless and overpaid many are, would save only 3% of the federal budget. To save money, you have to go where the money is. By far the largest “bucket” of federal spending is transfer payments, which are $3.19 trillion of the $6.7 trillion total budget in 2023.
Federal subsidies to states, including Medicaid, cost $1.15 trillion, while debt interest of $.9 trillion is not available for cutting. Purchases of supplies and salaries, which fund the military and all other governmental functions, cost a combined $1.4 trillion, yet provide relatively scant opportunity for significant reductions.
Meanwhile, the two parties dare each other to actually cut transfer payments and “push granny over the cliff.” Trump’s response is to adamantly repeat that he will never in any way “cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.”
This war of words has the unfortunate effect of handcuffing those legitimately trying to plan for the total depletion of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, scheduled to occur within the decade. It also rules out some of the non-draconian solutions available like work requirements for the able-bodied and gradually raising the retirement age.
When and if we get serious about cost-cutting and generational fraud, a good place to start would be Medicaid, the most abused and inefficient welfare program. Spending on Medicaid has grown an inflation-adjusted 671% since 1990. In fact, as Senator Phil Graham recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the real purchasing power of total government transfer payments is 20 times greater than when the War on Poverty began in 1990, while the official poverty rate remains at 11.6%.
How can that be? Gramm provides the key insight. Eligibility standards for means-tested programs including Medicaid are based on the Census Bureau’s calculations. But the Census vastly overstates the extent of poverty because it doesn’t count as income 88% of the transfer payments, including food stamps, refundable tax credits, and Medicaid itself. This incoherent bias in calculating income eligibility has led to massive waste, far exceeding DOGE’s projected savings.
Interestingly, the CBO in January developed a new metric for determining “poverty” in the traditional sense of not having enough resources to meet basic needs. When transfer payments were deemed income, which they obviously are, the actual poverty rate fell to 0.8%.
This is an opportunity to save substantial sums without harming those actually poor. $1.48 trillion in welfare benefits annually go to families not actually qualifying as poor, using the CBO’s calculation of counting transfer payments as income. Simply using the CBO methodology, combined with work requirements and limiting welfare benefits to those truly in need, would generate meaningful savings if we have the political courage to do so.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
In a time when confidence in our democratic institutions teeters on the edge, one principle must remain sacred: the sanctity of our elections. Our Republic is only as strong as the faith our citizens place in the ballot box. That’s why the passage of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) is not only timely—it is essential.
The SAVE Act draws directly from the foundation laid by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” That order highlighted what every American knows instinctively: fair and secure elections are the bedrock of our constitutional republic. President Trump made it clear that foreign interference, voter fraud, and systemic vulnerabilities are not just possibilities—they are threats we must meet with resolve and action. (RELATED: Stephen Miller Says Democrats Just Dropped ‘One Of The Dumbest Talking Points’ Yet Against SAVE Act)
H.R. 22 codifies into law many of the critical protections championed in that executive order. From requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections, to enhancing voter roll maintenance and mandating transparent election audits, the SAVE Act is a clear response to the growing concerns of voters across the political spectrum. It closes loopholes and modernizes our electoral systems to meet today’s challenges with strength and clarity.
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act with bipartisan support. That vote sent a clear and resounding message to the American people: election integrity is not a partisan issue—it is a national imperative. Now, the responsibility lies squarely with the United States Senate. The time for debate is over. The Senate must act swiftly, pass the SAVE Act, and send it to President Trump’s desk so he can sign it into law.
But passing legislation is only half the battle.
To truly safeguard the integrity of our elections, the SAVE Act must be implemented rigorously at the state level. This isn’t merely a matter of policy—it’s a matter of national security. Every Secretary of State and every election official across the country must treat the integrity of the ballot as the solemn responsibility it is. More importantly, state attorneys general must rise to the occasion and enforce this law with unwavering commitment.
The role of a state attorney general should go beyond consumer protections and civil enforcement. In this era, a top-priority mission must be the preservation of free and fair elections. Attorneys general must be fearless guardians of our electoral process—investigating fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and defending laws like the SAVE Act in court if necessary. Anything less is an abdication of their duty to the Constitution and to the people they serve.
Inaction is not neutrality—it is complicity. And when it comes to our elections, the cost of complacency is nothing less than the erosion of the public trust and the weakening of the very pillars of our Republic.
The SAVE Act offers a rare and critical opportunity to restore that trust. It deserves bipartisan support, full implementation, and vigilant enforcement. The American people are watching. They are demanding transparency, security, and fairness. We owe it to them—and to every generation that will inherit this great nation—to deliver nothing less.
Trey Trainor is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and currently serves as Chairman of the Federal Election Commission; he was nominated as a Commissioner by President Donald J. Trump and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2020. He is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Legislative and Campaign Law and has practiced election law for over two decades.
This past November was a good time to be a Republican, especially here in Arizona. Not only did President Donald Trump win our state in a landslide victory, but Republicans expanded their majorities in both the Arizona House and Senate—despite being outspent in every single race.
While this turn of events shocked many in the corporate media who were convinced that Arizona was on its way from being a purple state to a blue state, we knew that voter registration trends told a different story.
Over the last couple of years, the gap between registered Republicans and Democrats in Arizona widened from 3.04% in 2020 to 4.03% in 2022. By April of last year, it had increased to 5.77%. And by November, it had expanded to 6.77%, a registration increase that proved decisive in President Trump’s overwhelming victory.
Now, 5 months removed from their electoral wipeout in November, there has been a lot of discussion about whether the Democrats’ political fortunes in Arizona would be reversing after their blowout loss to Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the latest voter registration numbers poured plenty of cold water on those dreams…
March was Women’s History Month, but a quick perusal through Governor Katie Hobbs’ social media shows no mention of it.
Crickets.
I can only assume she was avoiding the backlash because she knows how the majority of Arizona voters feel about matters such as Women’s History Month.
It’s for women.
So much for being the party of women’s rights. Gov. Hobbs, a female governor, made it clear this week that she refuses to stand with women and, in doing so, she refuses to stand with Arizona voters.
Gov. Hobbs had a second chance to preserve women’s rights this year, but she vetoed HB2062, Arizona’s Stand With Women Act, an act that would have codified the original meaning of basic sex-based words like ‘woman’ and ‘female’ in order to ensure that women’s rights aren’t compromised by judicial activism and bureaucrats. It would have given power back to our elected representatives to decide how, and in which contexts, it is appropriate to separate citizens by sex.
Words matter. We can’t protect women if we can’t define ‘woman.’ I have a vested interest in making sure we do. I am a mother. I have two daughters. My first granddaughter is on the way. I am president of a public K-8 charter school where young girls come to learn.
Mother, daughter, granddaughter, grandmother, aunt, sister, girls … all words that will become meaningless if we don’t fight to stop our erasure. Activists say these words lack objective meaning. They say these words are defined by subjective feelings, rather than objective reality. The efforts of these activists to legally eradicate the difference between the sexes fundamentally erase women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. Men and women are legally equal, but biologically different and as such should have a legal right to single-sex spaces. 86% of Americans (and even 83% of Democrats) agree. Gov. Hobbs is out of touch with the public and even those of her own party.
What about publicly collected data regarding males and females? Shouldn’t vital statistics—including statistics about matters such as violence against women—reflect biological truth? Imagine a world where all data used to promote public health, prevent crime, enforce civil rights laws, and ensure economic and social policy was subjective!
Most of the public focus on this issue has been on fairness in women’s sports, but this goes far beyond sports. Only two states—and not Arizona—ensure women’s prisons are only for women. In many states, men identifying as women, many of whom are violent sexual predators, have been transferred into women’s prisons. Unfortunately, many female inmates have already suffered physical and psychological damage as a result. This is why 91% of Americans, even 88% of Democrats, support single-sex prisons.
Women, including sexual assault survivors, are being told not to complain about having men undress next to them in their private spaces such as locker rooms. Men are invading female sororities, domestic violence shelters, and educational training programs that were created specifically to encourage women’s engagement.
What kind of a world are we setting up for the next generation if we close our eyes to this? My challenge to all Arizonans is this: make some serious noise and do not let up! Educate everyone you meet on what Gov. Hobbs has done to disadvantage women and take away our right to equal opportunity. Talk about this at church, at the gym, and yes, even in the workplace. I am convinced that once Arizonans understand the dangerous impact of this veto, they will have found their line in the sand and have the courage to do something about it.
Christy Narsi lives in Surprise, AZ. She is the national chapter director for Independent Women’s Network. Christy is passionate about developing and empowering women who make an impact in their communities.
