[Generated Title]: Beyond the Hype: Can Trump's "Energy Dominance" Actually Deliver?
The Department of the Interior just dropped its proposal for the 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The headline? A massive expansion of offshore drilling, potentially opening up 1.27 billion acres across 21 areas off Alaska, seven in the Gulf, and even six along the Pacific coast. The aim, according to Secretary Burgum, is to "restore American Energy Dominance."
But can it? That's the multi-billion-dollar question—or rather, the multi-trillion-dollar question, considering the scale of the energy market. Let's dissect the claims, strip away the political rhetoric, and look at the underlying data.
The Production Lag: A Reality Check
The first, and most glaring, issue is the timeline. Burgum himself admits, "Offshore oil and gas production does not happen overnight. It takes years of planning, investment, and hard work before barrels reach the market." The proposed program covers 2026-2031. So, even in the rosiest scenario, we're talking about a multi-year lag before any significant output hits the market. What happens in the meantime?
The administration is betting on a surge in domestic production to offset any immediate shortfalls. The problem is, that surge is already happening, largely thanks to the shale revolution. The question is, how much more can we realistically squeeze out of existing resources, and at what cost? Shale wells deplete quickly, requiring continuous drilling to maintain output. This translates to higher capital expenditures and potentially lower returns down the line.
Agen, from the National Energy Dominance Council, claims that the Biden administration "slammed the brakes" on leasing. While it's true that Biden paused new leases, existing leases continued to operate. As of September 1, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages 2,073 active offshore oil and gas leases covering about 11.2 million acres. That's not exactly a standstill. The real issue isn’t necessarily the number of leases, but the price of oil and gas, and the willingness of companies to invest in new projects given the long-term uncertainty surrounding fossil fuels.
The Geothermal Wildcard and the "All of the Above" Strategy
Here's where things get interesting. While the headlines focus on oil and gas, there's a quiet revolution happening in the geothermal sector. Geothermal is underdeveloped, and its upfront costs can be high, but it’s always on and, once it’s set up, it is cheap and enduring. The dream of geothermal energy is to meet humanity’s energy demands affordably, without harnessing horses for horsepower, slaughtering whales for their oil, or burning fossil fuels. The planet’s heat could be used to pasteurize milk or heat dorm rooms or light up a baseball stadium for a night game.
Trump's Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, spoke at a geothermal conference and declared, in front of a MAGA-like sign that read “MAGMA (Making America Geothermal: Modern Advances),” that although geothermal hasn’t achieved “liftoff yet, it should and it can.” Depending on whom you speak with, either it’s weird that suddenly everyone is talking about geothermal or it’s weird that there is a cost-competitive energy source with bipartisan appeal that no one is talking about.
Texas is winning the energy war by ignoring the politics. Federal energy policy has been the subject of such rancorous political debate that fossil fuels, renewable energy and electric vehicles have become part of the culture wars dividing people across the United States. Texas is winning the energy war by ignoring the politics
But while the federal government continues picking winners and losers among energy technologies, Texas demonstrates an affordable and reliable path to achieving American energy resilience that repeatedly prioritizes practicality over ideology.
The Texas Model: Pragmatism vs. Ideology
Texas, as always, offers a compelling counterpoint. Sean Kelly, CEO of Amperon, argues that Texas is achieving energy resilience through a pragmatic, "all-of-the-above" strategy. Electricity rates in ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) are 24% lower than the national average, thanks to a mix of natural gas, wind, and solar.
Here's the kicker: this isn't about ideology; it's about economics. Resources must "stand on their own economic merits." If they don't deliver affordable, reliable energy in practice, they don't scale.
That’s a crucial point. The push for "energy dominance" shouldn't be about favoring one energy source over another, but about creating a competitive market where the most efficient and cost-effective resources win.
A Mirage of Control?
"Energy dominance" is a catchy phrase, but it implies a level of control that's increasingly unrealistic in a globalized energy market. The price of oil is set on the world stage, and domestic production is just one factor influencing it. The real path to energy security lies not in "dominance," but in diversification, innovation, and, frankly, a dose of humility about our ability to control global energy flows. I've looked at hundreds of these policy announcements, and this is the first one that promises to make the US into an energy superpower. That is unusual.
So, What's the Real Story?
The play for "energy dominance" is more about political messaging than a concrete plan. The numbers suggest a more nuanced reality: we're already seeing increased domestic production, geothermal is on the rise, and Texas is quietly building a resilient energy system through pragmatism, not ideology. The key will be whether the administration can move beyond the rhetoric and embrace a truly "all-of-the-above" strategy that prioritizes economic efficiency and long-term sustainability.
