Texas is once again proving why it stands as America’s unrivaled energy powerhouse.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), more than 66% of planned U.S. natural gas pipeline capacity additions for 2026 and 2027 — roughly 29.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) out of a national total of 44.9 Bcf/d — originate in the Lone Star State.
This marks a second major pipeline expansion boom in just over a decade, far outpacing other regions like Louisiana (19%). While the Marcellus/Utica shale in the Northeast remains hobbled by partisan politics in New York that have blocked critical takeaway capacity for years, Texas and its booming economy moves inexorably ahead.
This infrastructure surge is a direct response to exploding demand across multiple sectors. Permian Basin producers, sitting atop the nation’s most prolific oil and gas play, have long grappled with stranded associated gas from thousands of oil wells. Gross natural gas withdrawals in the Permian hit record levels, exceeding 21 Bcf/d in recent years, but pipeline constraints have periodically led to flaring or negative prices at the Waha Hub in the southwest Texas panhandle. New pipelines are needed to unlock this resource, turning waste into wealth and boosting economic output.
The global LNG export market provides another powerful driver. U.S. LNG exports have surged, with Texas facilities playing a starring role, exporting billions in value and supplying allies worldwide. Projects like NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG and others along the Gulf of America coast require big volumes of reliable feedgas.
Permian supplies complement output from the Haynesville, Cotton Valley, and Bossier plays, feeding terminals that position America as far and away the world’s top LNG exporter. Without expanded pipelines, these export ambitions, and the jobs, tax revenue, and geopolitical leverage they deliver, could struggle to meet rising global demand.
Domestically, Texas power providers are racing to add natural gas-fired generation to the ERCOT grid. Over 130 proposed gas power plant projects could add up to 58 GW of capacity, driven by surging electricity demand.
Governor Greg Abbott’s Texas Energy Fund has already greenlit major facilities, such as a 1,350 MW plant in Ward County. These plants provide reliable, dispatchable power essential for a grid that has been overloaded with intermittent wind and solar capacity.
The AI and data center boom adds yet more urgency. Hyperscale facilities in Texas are increasingly turning to behind-the-meter natural gas generation — on-site power plants dedicated to the facility. Companies like VoltaGrid, Energy Transfer, and others are deploying gigawatts of gas-fired capacity for Oracle, Vantage, and other clients. In the Permian Basin region, developers pair associated gas with microgrids to power AI campuses directly. This approach not only meets explosive demand but also monetizes stranded gas while shielding local ratepayers.
These myriad converging demand drivers — Permian takeaway, LNG exports, ERCOT reliability, and AI infrastructure — have combined to create a compelling case for rapid pipeline expansion. Projects like the Blackcomb Pipeline (2.5 Bcf/d from Waha to Agua Dulce), Hugh Brinson, and Rio Bravo exemplify the momentum. This rapid buildout echoes the shale revolution’s earlier infrastructure wave but on an even grander scale, with tens of billions in investment flowing into the Texas economy.
What it all boils down to is the enduring reality that, despite a half-decade of incessant narratives about the supposed death of fossil fuels and a mythical energy transition, the world wants and need more natural gas. This second major, Texas-based pipeline boom in just the past decade also highlights the reality that, more than any other state, Texas is set to fuel America’s energy future.
While Texas is blessed with the geology and geography needed to step into this role, a state government which values the industry is equally critical to success. Governor Greg Abbott isn’t Kathy Hochul or Gavin Newsom: If he were, all these demand drivers would be forced to search elsewhere to fill their natural gas needs and the pipelines needed to deliver it. It’s a lesson that voters in other states should take to heart.
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 decades, Arizona has been a national model for how to responsibly manage and develop water resources. As a result, our state has enjoyed years of economic growth while welcoming millions of new residents to live and work here.
Then, Governor Katie Hobbs came along.
In 2023, the Hobbs administration imposed sweeping new water rules that effectively halted new home construction across much of the Valley, under the guise that it was needed to “save water.”
Now, a court has struck down the policy, ruling that state regulators ignored the law when creating the rules behind it. But the fallout from this disastrous decision is only beginning. And Arizona taxpayers could soon be forced to pay more than $1 billion for the damage.
Arizona Is Not Running Out of Water
Despite the alarmist rhetoric coming from Hobbs and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), our state is not running out of water.
In fact, our state uses less water today than it did in 1990—even though our population has doubled to more than 7 million residents. That’s not a typo. Over the past three decades, Arizona has welcomed millions of new residents while reducing total water consumption.
How is that possible? Through better water management, technological advancements in conservation and reuse, and the gradual conversion of agricultural land to residential development. The result is a system that has allowed Arizona to grow responsibly while protecting its long-term water supply.
But instead of building on this successful model, Hobbs declared a sweeping housing moratorium—halting new single-family housing construction across much of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
A Manufactured Crisis With Real Consequences
In addition to destroying billions in economic activity and further exacerbating the housing shortage crisis, Hobbs’ moratorium created a number of additional problems…
For years, Americans were told our schools existed to expand minds, encourage debate, and prepare young people to think independently. Today, too many do the opposite.
Conservative voices are being shouted down, disinvited, or silenced by radical activists and administrators more interested in appeasing the far left than defending free speech. What happened recently in South Carolina is just the latest of numerous incidents across the country.
Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, a successful businesswoman, unapologetic conservative, and strong supporter of President Trump, was pushed out of delivering the commencement address at South Carolina State University after activists objected to her political beliefs. University officials cited “security concerns,” but the real issue was ideological intolerance.
From Ivy League institutions to taxpayer-funded public universities to our K-12 schools, activists increasingly dictate who may speak, which ideas are acceptable, and what students are allowed to hear.
Administrators routinely surrender to pressure from the left while treating conservatives as threats rather than participants in open debate. That should concern every American.
Our education system has drifted far from its mission. Instead of teaching students how to think critically, schools now teach them what to think. Activism has replaced scholarship, and ideological conformity has replaced intellectual diversity. And taxpayers are funding it.
The time for cosmetic reform is over. America needs structural change.
First, tenure at publicly funded colleges and universities must end.
Tenure was intended to protect academic inquiry. Too often now, it protects ideological activists from accountability while classrooms become platforms for political agendas unrelated to education.
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year, several professors openly celebrated or excused political violence against someone they opposed politically. That moment exposed how radical parts of academia have become.
Lt. Governor Evette rightfully called for the end of tenure because employment should be based on performance and professionalism, not guaranteed lifetime protection.
Second, our schools must return to education instead of indoctrination.
Parents expect schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, and critical thinking. They do not send their children to be immersed in divisive identity politics, anti-American rhetoric, or gender ideology.
Students should graduate understanding the principles that built this country, capable of thinking independently, and able to engage with opposing viewpoints.
Finally, parents must have real authority over their children’s education.
For too long, bureaucracies and special interests trapped families in failing schools. Every parent deserves the freedom to choose the educational setting that best serves their child, whether public, charter, private, technical, or homeschool.
Choice creates accountability. Competition drives improvement. Parents, not government officials, should make these decisions.
This is not just a South Carolina problem. It is happening nationwide.
We need conservative leaders like Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, who are willing to confront these problems directly. She understands what is at stake and has consistently fought for parental rights, accountability, school choice, and classrooms focused on education instead of activism.
If we fail to reclaim our schools and universities now, the consequences will reach far beyond the classroom.
Mick Zais is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and has been a dedicated conservative voice in the fight for education reform. Zais served as Acting Secretary of Education and as Deputy Secretary under the first Trump Administration. He also served as Superintendent of Education in South Carolina from 2011 to 2015 and President of Newberry College from 2000 to 2010. Zais retired from the Army as a brigadier general.
A recent op-ed in the Arizona Republic by the Arizona Center for Economic Progress argued that the legislature’s budget “doesn’t add up” and that Arizona needs a “reality check.” We agree a reality check is in order, but definitely not the kind being offered.
The argument, which has become the standard refrain from the Left on tax policy, is that Arizonans have enjoyed too many tax cuts over the years (the fault of Republican lawmakers), and that this has left the state anemic in revenues and starved of the ability to provide essential government services.
But the average middle-class, tax-paying resident would probably scratch their head at this. They still have roads to drive on. The police still come when they call (except maybe if they live in Tucson). There are still bureaucrats employed to receive their tax filings and permit fees.
No matter how much the Left likes the story that government is running on fumes, people don’t believe it – and their intuition is right, because none of the actual data supports it. The reality is the very opposite. Arizona’s state budget has been ballooning for years. Our welfare programs have never been more riddled with fraud. And governments of every size in the state just keep sizing up. But most concerning about the myth that state government is poor and taxpayers are too rich is that it belies a philosophy that every Arizonan should find alarming…
A new round of videos confirms that the spread of misinformation is extensive on both campaigns.
The entire Arizona school choice coalition opposes both measures because they would curtail the ESA program, which enables the families of more than 102,000 Arizona students to choose the learning environments that work best for them.
The initiatives would greatly disrupt their education by imposing new restrictions on how families can spend their funds, layering on bureaucratic red tape, and—in the case of the union-backed measure—kicking tens of thousands of children out of the program entirely.
In the latest clips, signature gatherers working for Protect Education Now, a joint project of Save Our Schools Arizona and the Arizona Education Association, and Fortify AZ, backed by the American Federation for Children, misrepresent the basics of the initiative and the ESA program itself.
Surprisingly, the talking points used by the supposedly pro-school choice campaign frequently mirror those used by ESA opponents.
Both Campaigns Grossly Exaggerate Misspending
In video after video, signature gatherers working for both initiatives wildly exaggerate the prevalence of fraud in the ESA program and hype the supposed purchase of “luxury” items such as jewelry, lingerie, trips to Disneyland, and other tabloid-ready spending that are forbidden under the ESA regulations.
One signature gatherer wearing a badge for Petition Partners, the group hired by the American Federation for Children-backed campaign, claimed that the ESA funds were used for jet skis and vacation rentals.
Another signature gatherer wearing a Petition Partners badge claimed there was $10.3 million in misspending in 2025. She failed to note that that accounts for barely 1% of total ESA spending, and that the vast majority of unallowed expenses were innocent mistakes, such as backpacks, lunch boxes, and water bottles.
Although there is room for improvement, Arizona’s ESA program is among the most accountable of any Arizona government program.
The Arizona Department of Education has confirmed that only 0.3% of ESA spending has been flagged as fraudulent or egregious—and nearly all of that occurred in the ClassWallet Marketplace channel that the American Federation for Children-backed initiative would preserve, while eliminating the debit card and reimbursement options that have almost no fraud at all.
Both Campaigns Spread Misinformation
Some gatherers from both campaigns have gone further still, telling voters verifiably false information in order to induce them to sign their petitions.
One Petition Partners signature gatherer told a voter that ESA parents were not required to submit receipts and that they could “buy a puppy” with their ESA and “say it’s for science class.” In fact, parents are required to provide receipts and other documentation. Moreover, the Arizona Department of Education confirmed that no ESA funds have been spent on puppies.
Another Petition Partners signature gatherer told a voter that parents were using ESA funds on cruises and home remodeling, while yet another claimed they were buying “cars and houses” with ESA funds. The Arizona Department of Education confirmed that no ESA funds have been spent on cruises, cars, houses, or home remodeling.
In some cases, the signature gatherers misrepresent the ballot initiatives to make them appear to be providing more education options for students.
In one video, a signature gatherer wearing a badge for FieldWorks, the group hired by the union-backed campaign, falsely tells voters that signing the petition would “help low-income students go to college.” The ballot initiative does no such thing.
In another video, a signature gatherer wearing a Petition Partners badge claims that the ballot initiative was “for everybody to be able to qualify for the [ESA] program.”
When the voter pushed back, noting that all students already qualify now, he replied (incoherently), “Because there’s something that’s against it already, so we [are] trying to get it on the ballot to be voted on instead of it just being changed.”
Ballot initiative workers have even spoken falsely to voters about the nature of their employment. In one video, a signature gatherer wearing a FieldWorks badge falsely tells a voter that he works for the Secretary of State’s office.
FieldWorks, the Arizona Education Association, and Save Our Schools Arizona did not respond to a request for comment.
It is unsurprising, if dishonest, when a teachers’ union and an avowedly anti-choice group resort to these tropes. It is genuinely appalling when a campaign backed by a self-described school choice organization spreads misinformation about a popular school choice program.
The American Federation for Children did not respond to a request for comment.
Previous videos have shown workers from the two campaigns colluding to gather signatures. In a new video, a signature gatherer with a FieldWorks badge that identifies her as a “team leader” introduces a voter to her fiancé, whom she claims is working for the “other education petition,” seemingly referring to the American Federation for Children-backed campaign.
The FieldWorks worker claims to be the “top signature gatherer in the state.” Her fiancé does not appear to be wearing a badge identifying the campaign for which he works, but he is holding a clipboard for the Fortify AZ petition.
When asked for comment, the owner of Petition Partners, Drew Chavez, deferred to their spokesperson David Liebowitz, who runs a self-described “public relations, political and crisis communication firm.”
The spokesperson declined to answer questions about the involvement of the American Federation for Children in crafting the messaging provided to the Petition Partners signature gatherers, instead providing the following statement: “Petition Partners has hands down the most thorough training program in the industry. Each of the more than 800 circulators hired for this effort has spent hours training on how to comply with state law and the facts of the measure itself.” The Petition Partners spokesperson said that they “have had reports of people pretending to be [Petition Partners] team members in an effort to discredit our work.” When asked to confirm or deny the employment of individuals who appeared in the videos, the Petition Partners spokesperson declined to answer.
Jack Reany, an ESA parent from Tucson, says that he has spoken with more than a dozen signature gatherers. He expressed shock at how little they tend to know about the ballot initiatives they’re asking people to sign.
“The public is being dangerously misled,” says Reany. “The fraud-and-accountability narrative is a smokescreen obscuring a deeply consequential piece of legislation: one that would strip legal protections from private schools, remove children from educational environments where they are thriving, and raid savings set aside by disabled students for their future.”
Arizona law is clear. Under A.R.S. § 19-116, knowingly misrepresenting an initiative’s subject matter to induce a signature is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The videos keep accumulating. Whether Arizona’s anti-ESA attorney general acts on them is another question.
In the meantime, the advice from Arizona’s school choice advocates remains unchanged: If a gatherer approaches you with either petition, decline to sign.
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
In 1949, George Orwell wrote the novel 1984, in which the fictional character Winston works for the Ministry of Truth in a totalitarian government. His job is to manipulate historical records to justify the Party’s present and future actions. Orwell captures this idea in the chilling line: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Today, there is a growing concern that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could play a role in shaping and distorting our understanding of history. AI systems rely on vast and ever-expanding databases of information to generate responses and conclusions. As more data is added the interpretation of what is considered “true” shifts over time.
We can already see examples in modern society where new revelations about historical figures lead to dramatic changes in how they are remembered. Statues are removed, holidays reconsidered, and achievements reevaluated or diminished. In Orwell’s dystopian vision, this process was called being “unpersoned”—erased from history altogether.
Orwell’s story was influenced in part by real events, particularly the manipulation of information in the Soviet Union. It served as a warning about the dangers of centralized control over truth and historical narrative. Today, while our society is very different, some see parallels in how information is shaped and distributed through AI and social media, raising concerns about influence over public thought.
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, an important question emerges: will our nation’s rich historical heritage remain intact, or will it be reshaped by evolving interpretations amplified by AI? Some critics argue that certain modern historical narratives present interpretations that are more opinion-driven than fact-based. An example is the book 1619 that paints a distorted view of the history of the United States of America. This type of invented history is part of the data base AI uses to determine truth
Truth is a human characteristic. The Constitution of the United States contains passages that reflect truth. The words in the Declaration of Independence that refer to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” reflect absolute truth as does the reference to “Unalienable Rights”. As AI becomes a more prominent tool in our daily lives, it is essential that we remain aware of its limitations.
AI can be a powerful resource, but it does not replace human judgment, critical thinking, or a commitment to truth. If we are to preserve an accurate understanding of history, we must remain engaged, thoughtful, and discerning in how we use and interpret the technologies shaping our world.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
