How Trump turned around a Biden energy policy based on hand waves and lies

New York Post - Apr 28th, 2025

The news story contrasts the energy agendas of Presidents Trump and Biden, highlighting two distinct visions for the role of government in shaping America's energy future. President Biden's approach involved a pause on LNG exports and a focus on environmental impact studies, leading to confusion and uncertainty within the industry. In contrast, President Trump reversed this pause, approved new LNG expansion projects, and established the White House Energy Dominance Council to expedite energy production. Trump's administration has been characterized by a commitment to eliminating government barriers to industry growth, exemplified by executive actions supporting coal and other fossil fuels.

The story underscores the broader implications of these contrasting policies, emphasizing the symbolic and practical significance of each administration's stance. Biden's climate agenda, marked by promises of green jobs and reduced reliance on fossil fuels, has faced challenges in execution, as seen in stalled projects and unmet promises. Meanwhile, Trump's policies reflect a shift towards boosting American energy production and supporting traditional energy sectors. This divergence not only impacts the energy industry but also reflects differing philosophies on government intervention and economic growth, setting the stage for ongoing debates about energy policy and environmental responsibility in the United States.

Lng Exports Climate Change Coal Industry Trump Energy Policy Biden Energy Agenda White House Energy Dominance Council American Energy Jobs Daniel Turner Power The Future

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical comparison of Biden's and Trump's energy policies, emphasizing the differences in their approaches. While it effectively captures the ongoing debate about energy policy, the story suffers from a lack of factual accuracy and balance. The absence of credible sources and verifiable evidence undermines the reliability of its claims. The narrative is heavily biased in favor of Trump's policies, limiting the reader's understanding of the complexities involved. Despite these weaknesses, the article engages with important public interest topics and has the potential to influence public opinion. However, its impact is constrained by the lack of transparency and balanced perspective.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that require verification, such as President Biden's alleged pause on LNG exports and the supposed confusion surrounding it. The article claims Biden admitted to not knowing details about the decision, which is a significant assertion needing verification. Similarly, the report of Trump ending the LNG pause and approving new projects, including a $44 billion joint venture, necessitates confirmation. The claims about Biden's climate speech and the status of the green manufacturing plant also need factual support to determine their accuracy. The article's portrayal of Trump's executive order on coal and the subsequent Department of Justice actions requires evidence to substantiate these claims. Overall, while the story provides specific details, many lack verifiable evidence, impacting its factual accuracy.

Balance

The story demonstrates a clear bias towards Trump's energy policies while criticizing Biden's approach. It portrays Biden's policies as ineffective and confusing, while Trump is depicted as decisive and beneficial for the energy sector. This imbalance is evident in the language used, such as describing Biden's actions as 'amorphous, shape-shifting political goo' and Trump's as promoting 'greater prosperity for all.' The article omits perspectives that might support Biden's policies or critique Trump's, resulting in a one-sided narrative. Such favoritism limits the reader's understanding of the broader context and the complexities of energy policy.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a logical flow that guides readers through the contrasting energy policies of Biden and Trump. However, the tone is decidedly biased, using emotionally charged language to emphasize the author's perspective. While the structure is coherent, the lack of neutrality in language affects the overall clarity and objectivity of the piece. Despite these issues, the article is relatively easy to follow and understand.

Source quality

The article lacks citations or references to credible sources to support its claims. It primarily relies on the author's assertions without providing evidence from authoritative or diverse sources. The absence of direct quotes from official documents, industry experts, or government statements diminishes the reliability of the information presented. The author's affiliation with Power The Future, an organization advocating for American energy jobs, may introduce a potential conflict of interest, affecting the impartiality of the reporting.

Transparency

The article fails to disclose the basis for its claims or the methodology used to reach its conclusions. It does not provide context or background information that would help readers understand the complexities of the issues discussed. The lack of transparency regarding the author's potential biases or conflicts of interest further undermines the article's credibility. Without clear explanations or disclosures, readers are left to question the motivations behind the narrative presented.