reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 notes that vaccines and boosters are readily available, testing has been dramatically scaled with millions of rapid tests, and that 82 percent of adult Americans have taken the vaccine. He states that those not vaccinated are nine times more likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus, and emphasizes that the country is in a different place than a year ago, with ongoing work to fight the virus. - On the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), Speaker 0 explains that the release totals 50,000,000 barrels, with 18,000,000 already congressionally required and accelerated by the president to provide immediate relief. The remaining 32,000,000 comes from an exchange, putting barrels on the market now in exchange for their return in the future. He describes the exchange as a tool matched to the current economic environment and notes the aim to lower costs for the American people, particularly gas prices ahead of the holiday season, while acknowledging the pandemic’s impact on the global cost of goods and gas. He also mentions pressing OPEC+ to increase supply and using every tool at the administration’s disposal to help working families. - When pressed about the 50,000,000 barrels figure, Speaker 0 refrains from further detail beyond the explanation that 18,000,000 were congressionally required and the rest come from the exchange arrangement. - On China, Speaker 0 clarifies that the president did not intend to separate China publicly, saying China may do more, but the president does not want to speak for any country. He notes that the president has had conversations with other countries and that the national security team has communicated with them; announcements will be made by those countries themselves. Speaker 1 asks whether the president spoke with Xi Jinping; Speaker 0 confirms they did talk, as referenced in a readout issued afterward, and that the president asked China to discuss helping with supply, without detailing further. - Regarding Ukraine, Speaker 1 asks for updates on White House assessments and plans for a possible phone call with President Putin. Speaker 0 says there is nothing to preview at this time, but reiterates that the United States remains in very close contact with European partners.

President Trump wisely declared a national energy emergency on his first day, reversing disastrous Biden policies rooted in climate ideology, which caused inflation, wars, and manufacturing decline. Energy security is vital for national security. America is back in the energy business, attracting capital and offering a chance to win the AI arms race against China, which has vastly increased its coal usage. The US has embraced baseload power and is leveraging its coal resources, estimated at $8 trillion on public lands. Leasing is occurring for oil, gas, timber, grazing, and critical minerals, generating revenue and jobs. America's 700 million acres of public surface and subsurface land, plus 2.5 billion offshore acres, hold resources for self-sufficient supply chains. China controls 85% of the refining for the top 20 critical minerals needed for defense and industry, so efforts are underway to regain business in this area. 41% of the southern border is within the Department of Interior. Theodore Roosevelt's 60-foot strip along the border, unused for years, has been transferred to the DOD for border security. Border patrol morale has improved significantly. A U.S. Wildlife Refuge was renamed in honor of Jocelyn Nongare, who was killed by illegal Venezuelan gang members.

Joe Biden's energy policies are causing high inflation and hitting American families hard. He reversed actions that achieved energy independence and canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline. By reentering the Paris climate accord and blocking new oil, gas, and coal production, he is raising energy costs and hurting industries like food, shipping, and manufacturing. China benefits from these high energy prices, driving our heavy industry overseas. To become an advanced manufacturing nation, we need low-cost energy. Biden's energy agenda aligns with China's, as they sign global climate deals and break them. When I'm back in the White House, I'll bring back a pro-American energy policy, eliminating unnecessary regulations and approving energy projects quickly. This will create jobs, restore hope, and make America great again.

A year ago, it took an hour of work for a middle wage worker to get 5.5 gallons of gas, but now they can get 8 gallons. This is a 40% improvement. However, the current gas price is around $3.60 per gallon, compared to $2.39 when Biden took office. So, in less than 2 years, we are in a worse place. The speaker admits that things are worse than before, indicating a pretty bad situation.

Speaker 0 asks Secretary 1 if they support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030. Secretary 1 confirms their support. Speaker 0 then brings up a past resolution in 1997 where the US shouldn't cut emissions until other countries like China, India, and Mexico do the same. Secretary 1 acknowledges this and states that emissions have increased in those countries as well as globally. Speaker 0 questions if Secretary 1 has abandoned their position, to which Secretary 1 explains that the world has changed since then. Speaker 0 then asks about Secretary 1's previous statements on global emissions and the correct amount of CO2. Secretary 1 explains the need to reduce emissions and control current levels. Speaker 0 presses for a specific amount, but Secretary 1 says it changes daily. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 challenging Secretary 1's views on climate change and the cost of addressing it. Secretary 1 defends their position and mentions the consensus among scientists.

China, Russia, and India have significant pollution issues. I withdrew from the Paris Accord because it unfairly burdened the U.S. with costs, potentially harming millions of jobs and thousands of businesses. While China and Russia have lenient standards, we would have faced immediate restrictions. Our environmental efforts have led to the cleanest air and water, along with the best carbon emission standards in years.

The speaker denies coordinating with President Trump or his campaign while authoring the EPA chapter on Project 2025, stating it's misleading to suggest otherwise. They assert the Heritage Foundation's work on conservative policies predates Trump, with the "Mandate for Leadership" series existing since 1981. The speaker claims Vice President Kamala Harris avoided answering if Americans are better off economically than four years ago, arguing most Americans are struggling due to the Biden-Harris administration's energy policies. They cite rising costs of gas, electricity, and groceries as evidence of financial hardship caused by policies like restricting resource development and demonizing coal, oil, and natural gas. The speaker references an Institute of Energy Research report that claims over 250 actions by the Biden-Harris administration have hindered American energy production, including halting the Keystone XL Pipeline, limiting oil and gas permits, and impeding critical mineral access, increasing dependence on China. They state these actions have increased gas and electricity prices.

The Interior Secretary is being criticized for celebrating high gas prices and inflation as a positive outcome for the environment. Gavin Newsom claims that we are more energy independent under Biden, but the oil and gas industry disagrees. While there has been an increase in domestic oil production, it is due to policies from the previous administration and not sustainable growth. The Biden administration has restricted the development of fossil fuels and limited funding for future projects, leading to higher energy prices. This is something that Gavin Newsom failed to acknowledge.

Over the next decades, $150 billion worth of oil and gas will be extracted off Guyana's coast, releasing over 2 billion tons of carbon emissions. The President argues that Guyana's preserved forest, storing 19.5 gigatons of carbon, justifies their stance on climate change. Despite oil exploration, Guyana maintains a net zero carbon footprint and questions the world's hypocrisy in valuing biodiversity. The President challenges if others are influenced by those who harm the environment.

Withdrawing from the World Health Organization was significant; the U.S. paid $500 million while China paid only $39 million. This disparity seemed unfair. When Biden rejoined, the U.S. was offered a $500 million deal, despite the previous lower offer. Inflation is largely driven by energy issues. The current administration has reversed previous energy policies, which has delayed benefits. The U.S. has significant energy resources and potential revenue from tariffs, especially considering the European Union's high VAT tax. The U.S. has a $300 billion trade deficit with the EU, which could be addressed through tariffs or increased oil sales. There’s a possibility of traveling to China this year. Regarding BRICS, if they challenge the U.S., it could lead to consequences. A universal tariff is a consideration, but it's not yet ready for implementation.

Donald Trump has argued that the US interest in Venezuela, including ships off its coast, is driven by drugs and smuggling, but there may be another factor at play: oil. The speaker notes that US oil production has surged thanks to shale and fracking, pushing the US past Saudi Arabia in output and leaving Venezuela as a much smaller producer (now around the 20th largest). Despite this boom, the US still relies heavily on imports. Crude oil comes in different types, notably by density. Light crude—often described as a “smoothie” or even clear when it comes out of the ground—dominates American shale oil production today. In contrast, heavy crude is gloopy and viscous. Refineries, particularly in the US, were built to process heavy oil into gasoline and other products. There are over 100 refineries in the US, with many located in Texas, Louisiana, and around California. Historically, California processed heavier oil, and key refineries in California, Texas, and Louisiana were designed to handle heavy crude. The shift to light shale oil has changed the feedstock mix for US refineries. Even with record oil production, the US imports remain high because the refineries still demand heavy crude. The share of heavy crude in US imports rose dramatically: it used to be about 12% of imports, but now it’s around 70%. Major sources of this heavy crude include Canada and Venezuela, with Canada’s share of US oil imports rising from around 15% to about 61%. Venezuela, once a larger supplier, has fallen to a comparatively small role in US oil imports. The geography of heavy oil matters because the world’s oil reserves are unevenly distributed by type. Venezuela tops the list of oil reserves, and the heavy, tar-like oil it holds is particularly relevant to those refineries optimized for heavy crude. The other significant sources of heavy oil include Canada and Russia. The speaker emphasizes that the type of oil a country needs matters for geopolitics, since heavy oil from Venezuela (and Canada) has been integral to feeding US refineries that were built for heavy crude, even as US production has become light and shale-driven. In short, while US shale has boosted domestic output, the reliance on heavy crude imports—especially from Canada and Venezuela—remains structurally important due to refinery configurations and the nature of available crude, making Venezuela’s oil context geopolitically significant beyond just drug-related concerns.

I questioned the President about pausing LNG exports to Europe, emphasizing the demand from our allies and how it impacts the war in Ukraine by making them rely on Putin's gas. He was stunned and claimed he didn't do it. I pointed out the recent executive order and offered to have his secretary print it out for us to review together. He then said he only signed something to conduct a study on the effects of LNG. But I told him, no, he paused it, and it's causing massive damage to our economy and national security. It struck me that he genuinely didn't know what he had signed. It made me wonder, who is really running the country if he's signing things without knowing what they are?

I asked the president why he paused LNG exports to Europe, which are crucial for our allies and impact national security. He seemed unaware of his own executive order and insisted he only authorized a study on LNG. This raised concerns about who is truly in charge. The situation reflects a deeper issue, suggesting Biden is not fully in control and is being manipulated by others. There are calls for criminal investigations into the actions taken during his administration, particularly regarding energy policies that harm the economy. The need to expose these issues is urgent, as they threaten national interests and reflect a broader pattern of disregard for accountability.

A speaker asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much global temperatures would decrease if the U.S. spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Deputy Secretary states that every country needs to act, and the U.S. accounts for 13% of global emissions. The speaker repeats the question, but the Deputy Secretary says it's a global problem and the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions. The speaker asks how much of a reduction would result if the U.S. does its part. The Deputy Secretary reiterates that the U.S. is 13% of global emissions, and if the U.S. went to zero emissions, that would be 13%. The speaker accuses the Deputy Secretary of wanting to spend $50 trillion without knowing if it will reduce world temperatures.

Professor Robert Pape warned on X that within ten days parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods, based on thirty years studying economic sanctions and blockades. He said this would bring not just higher prices but shortages, and that markets are not ready for this. The Kobelisi letter stated the world is experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history with 600,000,000 barrels of lost oil supply, US gas prices up 47% since December, and inflation approaching 4% in a path similar to the 1970s. The discussion then touched on Iran’s war potentially returning to open conflict. The United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, which Larry Johnson described as piracy and an act of war aimed at clearing the Strait of Hormuz; Tehran called it armed piracy and promised a response. JD Vance was headed to Islamabad for talks, though Iranian officials said they had not agreed to anything. Fox’s Tel Aviv correspondent relayed that Trump told him they would blow up everything in Iran if they didn’t come to the table, saying the deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from possessing highly enriched uranium. Professor Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack, joined the program. He referenced his April 12 post predicting shortages within forty-five to sixty days and described three stages: Stage one, the first ~45 days with price increases; Stage two (40–60 days) with shortages emerging; Stage three (day 60–90) with worsening shortages and then contraction, beginning around May 31. He explained that shortages would escalate into reduced production of commodities, fewer airline seats, and broader disruptions across supply chains. Pape detailed the implications for air travel and energy: jet fuel shortages could cause European and global aviation reductions, with Europe’s ~110,000,000 monthly air passengers dropping to potentially 80 million or fewer as fuel becomes scarce; cargo, mail, and just-in-time deliveries would be affected, and overall product availability would contract. He argued that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran’s potential shutdown and the U.S. response would complicate efforts to keep that oil flowing. He emphasized that the contraction would begin even as oil access becomes more difficult and other nations (including the U.S.) struggle to secure energy. The conversation then shifted to China. Pape noted that in China, the impact on GDP could be modest (about 1%), but the U.S. could be drawn into a larger conflict that could benefit China. He observed China’s preparation for energy independence: stockpiling oil, relying on solar, nuclear, and coal, and maintaining a robust energy strategy even during tensions with the U.S. He suggested that tariffs and conflicts did not significantly disrupt China’s planning, which could lead to China gaining relative advantage as the U.S. faces a widening energy and economic crisis. There was discussion about the United States’ energy independence. Pape stated he has long advocated energy independence since 2005, but warned that the broader picture involves debt, energy policy, and strategic choices that could threaten American leadership. He stressed the need for a concrete five-year plan to navigate the crisis without harming the economy in the short term and cautioned against escalating war in Iran. In addressing the everyday impact, the speakers considered who would be hardest hit: the poorest, and particularly non-college-educated white working-class voters, who had experienced the largest deterioration in income since 1990. The conversation included proposals to mitigate consumer pain, such as targeted economic measures for working Americans affected by rising gas prices, potentially including tax considerations or subsidies for those whose jobs require fuel, while avoiding broad handouts. Pape reiterated that his Escalation Trap Substack presents a framework based on twenty-one years of modeling the bombing of Iran and indicates that the stages he predicted are unfolding faster than anticipated, with a focus on concrete policy options that could be enacted by May 1. He emphasized that his analysis centers on consequences for ordinary people and urged practical policy steps to address the crisis.

Mario and the Professor discuss the scale and spread of the current oil and energy shock and its broad economic and geopolitical ripple effects. - Severity and scope: The Professor calls the crisis “pretty catastrophic,” possibly the biggest oil crisis experienced, potentially surpassing the 1970s shocks. He notes a gap between Washington rhetoric and underlying economic reality and emphasizes the war’s effects beyond oil, including fertilizer and helium, all of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz or related chokepoints. - U.S. economic backdrop (before the war): The Professor provides a pre-war table: - U.S. GDP growth in 2024 was 2.3%, 2025 about the same after a dip in 2024 to 2.2%. - Jobs: 2024 added 2.2 million; 2025 added 185,000, with tariffs contributing to a manufacturing job loss of 108,000. - Productivity declined from 3% to 2.1% in 2025. - He argues the U.S. economy was already slowing and that the war exacerbates existing weaknesses rather than creating a boom. - Immediate physical and downstream effects: - The closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects more than oil: up to 20% of world oil, a third of fertilizer, and helium used in chip manufacturing (notably in Taiwan) pass through the strait. - The closure’s ripple effects include fertilizer shortages and higher prices (fertilizer up about 50%), and broader supply chain dislocations as related infrastructure and inventories (oil, fertilizers, helium) become depleted and must be rebuilt. - Relative impact by region: The U.S. is more insulated from physical shocks than many others, but financial markets (stocks and bonds) are hit, with higher interest rates and a rising 10- and 30-year bond yield. Europe and Asia face larger direct physical disruptions; India, Taiwan, and others bear notable hits due to fertilizer and helium supply constraints. - Global energy and political dynamics: - The U.S. remains a net importer of oil, though it is a net exporter of petroleum products; fertilizer reliance and pricing reflect broader global constraints. - The professor highlights the political costs: protectionism (tariffs), militarism (increased defense spending and involvement), and interventionism (policy actions). He notes polling is negative on these directions, suggesting policy headwinds for the administration. - The escalation and motivations for war: - A theory discussed is that the war was driven by a belief in decapitating Iran’s leadership to force regime change, a strategy the professor says many experts have warned against. He cites New York Times reporting that Mossad and Netanyahu supported decapitation, but that former Mossad leadership and U.S. intelligence warned it would not work; the escalation suggests a divergence between theory and outcome. - He acknowledges another view that controlling Hormuz could economically benefit the U.S., but ranks it as a lesser driver than regime-change objectives. - Possible outcomes and scenarios: - If the Houthis control the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and the Beber/Mendeb is blocked, the consequences would intensify; the professor describes a “freeway turned into a toll road” scenario in Hormuz and greater disruption in the Gulf, including potential attacks on desalination plants. - The economic signaling would likely worsen: downward revisions to growth, higher import prices, and increased financial market strain; a prolonged closure would intensify these effects. - The escalation ladder and endgame: - The professor warns that escalating with boots on the ground would favor Iran and could trigger widespread disruption of Gulf infrastructure, desalination, and regional stability. He suggests Russia would be a clear beneficiary in such a scenario. - He concludes with a stark warning: if Hormuz and the Beber/Mendeb remain closed, and desalination and critical infrastructure are attacked, the situation could resemble or exceed the scale of the 2008 financial crisis—“look like a birthday party” compared with what could unfold. - Overall takeaway: The crisis is multi-faceted, with immediate physical shortages (oil, fertilizer, helium) and cascading financial and political costs. The duration and depth depend on how long chokepoints stay closed and whether escalation occurs, with the potential for severe global economic and geopolitical consequences.

Ranking member Raskin is creating a "boogeyman" that isn't there. The speaker authored the EPA chapter on project 2020 5, but did not work with President Trump or his campaign. The speaker is not vying for a position in the next administration and now lives in Mississippi. The leading candidate is running away from policy actions that make Americans' lives difficult. Vice President Kamala Harris did not answer when asked if Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago. Most Americans are struggling with expensive gas, electricity, and groceries due to the Biden-Harris Administration's day 1 energy policies. Since January 2021, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Congressional Democrats have taken over 250 actions that make it harder to produce energy in America. Actions include stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline, issuing a moratorium on new oil and gas permits on federal lands, greenlighting Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, rejoining the Paris climate agreement, blocking the Twin Metals mine, and slowing permits for LNG facilities.

The Loan Program Office supplied a little over $40 billion in its fifteen years, then almost $100 billion in the 76 days between the election loss and President Trump's inauguration. The speaker questions why these actions weren't taken in the two and a half years after the Inflation Reduction Act passed. According to the speaker, the previous administration changed terms and loan covenants, attempting to complicate any unwinding of their actions. The speaker characterizes this as irresponsible treatment of taxpayer money and detrimental to energy system progress. The speaker states that while they inherited a mess, it is fixable. They claim their team is aggressively addressing the issues, resulting in lower American energy prices and increased investments bringing jobs back to America.

Speaker 0 introduces a myth that Trump waging war against Iran would close the Strait in a way that hurts China first, making Trump victorious, and asks for an answer to that perception. Speaker 1 argues that the perception isn't accurate, noting China has been building energy security for over twenty years. They travel to China frequently and see zero signs of energy scarcity; if there were any potential energy squeeze, it would be visible among the people and on social media, but it isn’t. He explains China’s energy composition is stable, and that even if Middle Eastern energy supplies were disrupted, China’s situation remains manageable. He states that China actually produces 30% of the crude oil it consumes domestically, so it does not import all its energy. Speaker 0 adds that people are often surprised by how much solar, wind, and hydropower China has, mentioning a special report noting that the aggregate annual terawatt-hours of output of China’s power grid is more than double the United States, and that this is growing rapidly. Speaker 1 confirms the rapid growth and attributes part of China’s diversification to the influence of Western financial practices, saying, “thanks to the Western banking cartel because they have been suppressing the price of silver to ridiculous low prices.” He claims China imports all the silver to manufacture solar panels, implying that by maintaining low silver prices, Western bankers have inadvertently helped China with energy diversification.

I am working very hard to end the savage conflict in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded in this horrific and brutal conflict with no end in sight. The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense with no security. Do you want to keep it going for another five years? 2,000 people are being killed every single week, or more. They're Russian young people. They're Ukrainian young people. They're not Americans, but I want it to stop. Meanwhile, Europe has sadly spent more money buying Russian oil and gas than they have spent on defending Ukraine by far. They've spent more buying Russian oil and gas than they have defending Ukraine.

So last year, The US ran a trade deficit with India of almost $46,000,000,000. Proof to president Trump, the relationship in his view is unfair. India imports most of its oil last year, almost 40% of its crude from Russia. Well, president Trump is saying India is helping Russia fund the war in Ukraine. Earlier this month, he accused it of not caring how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian war machine. India's prime minister Narendra Modi is defiant on all of this. On Monday, his ambassador to Russia said India will continue to buy oil from wherever it gets the best deal in order to protect the interests of its 1,400,000,000.0 p

The speaker argues that using the dollar as a tool of foreign policy is one of the biggest strategic mistakes by the US political leadership, stating that the dollar is the cornerstone of US power and that printing more dollars leads to their wide dispersion worldwide. Inflation in the United States is described as minimal, about 3% to 3.4%, and the speaker asserts that the US will not stop printing. The debt of $33 trillion is said to indicate emission, and the dollar is described as the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power globally. Once the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, the speaker claims a blow was dealt to American power. The speaker avoids strong language but calls the strategy a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake, pointing to world events as evidence. The speaker notes that US allies are downsizing their dollar reserves, and asserts that these actions cause everyone to seek ways to protect themselves. They claim that US restrictive measures—such as placing restrictions on transactions and freezing assets—cause great concern and send a signal to the world. A historical point is made: until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were conducted in US dollars and euros, with US dollars accounting for approximately 50% of Russia’s transactions with third countries; currently, the share is down to 13%. The speaker emphasizes that Russia did not ban the use of the US dollar; it was a decision by the United States to restrict transactions in US dollars. The speaker contends that the policy is foolish from the standpoint of US interests and taxpayers because it damages the US economy and undermines US power, and notes that transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of transactions are in rubles, and a little over 34% in yuan. The speaker asks why the United States did this, offering “self conceit” as the guess, claiming the US probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Additionally, the speaker states that other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. The question is posed to the United States about whether anyone realizes what is happening and what they are doing, as the speaker suggests that the US is cutting itself off. Finally, the speaker asserts that all experts say this, and that anyone intelligent in the United States should understand what the dollar means for the US, but claims the US is “killing it with your own hand.”

Gas prices in America have dropped from over $5 to $3.39 since I took office. To continue this progress, energy companies should lower the cost of a gallon of gas to match the price they pay for a barrel.

The President mentioned that inflation was high when he took office, but it was actually 1.4% in January 2021. The pandemic and supply chain disruptions caused inflation to rise globally. The situation worsened due to Russia's war in Ukraine. The President took action to address supply chain issues, like releasing oil reserves. Progress has been made in lowering costs and managing inflation since then.

Alaska oil and gas leases are being canceled, causing market volatility and dependence on foreign energy. The speaker emphasizes that America has the reserves and safety measures to produce energy efficiently. They criticize Biden for making the country reliant on Arab sheiks and claim it is purposeful. The size of the exploration pad needed is compared to a postage stamp on a football field, highlighting the minimal impact on the environment. The left is accused of using the issue as a fundraiser and advocating for energy rationing and censorship. The speaker mentions that petroleum affects every aspect of our lives and expresses frustration over rising prices, citing a recent $120 truck fill-up.