Trump’s Energy Appointments Demonstrate Notable Competence

President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Chris Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, to lead the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy (DOE), respectively, represents a notable shift toward a more pragmatic approach in the federal government’s energy policy. Unlike some of Trump’s more controversial staff selections, Burgum and Wright embody a potential return to energy realism, aiming to streamline processes, reduce regulatory burdens, and thereby foster private sector innovation in the energy sector. If confirmed, they will also be joining the National Energy Council, chaired by Burgum, where their role will be pivotal in directing the energy agenda in the Trump administration away from protectionist practices and toward a landscape that prioritizes efficiency and innovation.

Wright and Burgum step into their roles at a time when the Energy Department is experiencing significant funding influxes due to legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act. Under Biden’s administration, the DOE has managed substantial financial resources, particularly in initiatives aimed at enhancing renewable energy and managing nuclear stockpiles. In contrast to the Biden-era policies—which included a pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports—Wright’s leadership may reverse such restrictions, streamline permitting processes, and eliminate redundancies as he determines budgetary priorities for an agency with a budget nearing $50 billion for the fiscal year 2024. The challenge will be to work collaboratively with Congress to achieve these goals while potentially rolling back some of the funding initiatives introduced under the previous administration.

At the Department of the Interior, Burgum will face the critical task of managing the federal lands that account for a significant portion of the country’s oil and natural gas production. The Biden administration’s temporary pause on new leasing and subsequent mining moratorium has raised concerns about domestic energy production. Burgum’s role will be crucial in facilitating new lease agreements and advocating for reduced regulations that will support mining operations and lessen reliance on foreign sources, particularly from China, which dominates the supply of critical minerals. These actions could impact energy independence and economic stability, particularly as states like North Dakota continue to balance fossil fuel production with advancing renewable energy initiatives.

Both nominees come from environments that emphasize a diversified and responsible approach to energy policy. Wright’s leadership at Liberty Energy highlights the transformative role of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in significantly lowering emissions in the United States. He has also been allied with cutting-edge nuclear technology firms, promoting innovative solutions to energy challenges. While critics have labeled him as a “climate skeptic,” Wright acknowledges climate change as a pressing issue that necessitates affordable energy solutions. His philanthropic efforts through the Bettering Human Lives Foundation, which work towards alleviating indoor air pollution in developing countries, further illustrates his commitment to pairing energy accessibility with public health benefits.

Governor Burgum’s record exhibits his endorsement of an “all of the above” energy strategy that includes significant contributions from both fossil fuels and renewables. His administration in North Dakota has set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals, embracing technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen fuel. This mixed approach not only supports the state’s economic interests in oil production but also aligns with broader climate objectives. The complexities of navigating energy policy will require a careful balance of maintaining economic growth while also addressing environmental concerns, particularly in light of the overarching economic policies promoted by Trump.

While Wright and Burgum bring a refreshing injection of competence and realism to the Trump administration’s energy policy, their potential impact may be tempered by other aspects of Trump’s economic agenda. Trade tariffs and excessive government spending could counteract any positive changes aimed at reducing energy costs, ultimately affecting consumers and taxpayers. Nonetheless, there remains optimism that their leadership can foster an environment conducive to innovation, deregulation, and a pragmatic approach to energy production and environmental stewardship, benefiting the wider community while placating some environmental concerns associated with fossil fuel reliance.