Listen to the article
The Trump administration marked the one-year anniversary of the National Energy Dominance Council on Saturday, highlighting achievements in domestic energy production and lower consumer costs during President Trump’s return to office.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who chairs the council, emphasized the tangible impact of the administration’s energy policies. “Under the President’s leadership and through the Council’s relentless execution, we have delivered historic gains in energy production, affordability, and security,” Burgum told Fox News Digital.
“Gasoline prices have fallen to some of the lowest levels in years, permitting has been streamlined, and American energy exports are surging,” he added. “These achievements are not abstract, they mean real savings for families, farmers, and small businesses, and they are strengthening our position on the world stage.”
The National Energy Dominance Council was established through an executive order signed by President Trump on February 14, 2025. Its mandate includes reducing regulatory barriers, coordinating federal agencies to increase U.S. energy production, accelerating permitting processes, expanding exports, and implementing a comprehensive national “energy dominance” strategy.
According to data released by the administration, U.S. crude oil production reached an all-time high of 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025, positioning America as the world’s leading oil producer. The White House noted that while the Biden administration took four years to increase production from 11.3 million to 13.2 million barrels per day, the Trump administration “blew past” those numbers within months of taking office.
Natural gas production has also seen significant growth, reaching 110.1 billion cubic feet per day in November 2025 – the highest level recorded since federal tracking began in 1973. This represents an approximately 8% increase over the Biden-era average and a 4% improvement over previous U.S. natural gas production records.
The administration also touted America’s expanded position as the world’s top liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter. Average LNG exports rose to 15 billion cubic feet per day in 2025, up from 11 billion during the Biden administration, further cementing U.S. influence in global energy markets.
Energy affordability has been a central component of the administration’s economic strategy, with officials positioning increased production as key to combating inflation. The White House cited current gasoline prices averaging around $2.90 per gallon, representing a 16% decrease from the Biden-era average and a dramatic 42% drop from the June 2022 peak of $5.02.
Crude oil prices have similarly declined by approximately 18% in 2025, falling to $65 per barrel from the previous administration’s average of $79. The White House emphasized that these lower energy costs benefit a broad spectrum of Americans, from working families and rural communities to small businesses and farmers who typically face higher transportation expenses.
The administration has framed energy policy as a crucial element in addressing broader economic concerns stemming from the high inflation that characterized much of the Biden presidency. Officials argue that cheaper energy creates a ripple effect throughout the economy by reducing transportation and shipping costs, as well as lowering production expenses for manufacturers across various sectors.
However, the administration’s energy approach has drawn significant criticism from environmental organizations. These groups have characterized Trump’s “energy dominance” push as an expansion of fossil fuel use that undermines climate goals and potentially increases pollution impacts on public lands and communities.
Despite these criticisms, Burgum remains steadfast in his assessment of the council’s first-year impact. “One year ago, President Donald J. Trump launched the National Energy Dominance Council to restore America’s Energy Dominance and make life more affordable for hardworking families. Today, the results speak for themselves,” he stated.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
This is a complex topic with valid arguments on multiple sides. I appreciate the effort to provide objective data, but would encourage further analysis to fully assess the nuances and tradeoffs involved.
This is an important and complex issue. I appreciate the detailed data points provided, but would caution against drawing firm conclusions without a more holistic analysis of the policies and their impacts.
The article highlights some tangible benefits like lower gas prices and increased energy exports under Trump. But I’d want to look at longer-term trends and impacts to get a full picture.
Agreed, short-term metrics don’t tell the whole story. Analyzing the sustainability and broader effects of the policy approaches would provide valuable context.
It’s interesting to see the different priorities and strategies between the Trump and Biden administrations on energy policy. I’m curious to hear perspectives from a range of experts and stakeholders on the tradeoffs involved.
The contrasting approaches to energy policy between the Trump and Biden administrations highlight the political divides on this issue. I’m curious to see how voters respond to these differing priorities.
I’m curious to see how the public views these energy policy outcomes. There’s likely a range of perspectives on the tradeoffs between things like affordability, environmental impacts, and geopolitical factors.
That’s a good point. Assessing the broader implications, both positive and negative, will be important for a balanced understanding.
The data on increased domestic energy production and lower consumer costs under Trump is noteworthy. But it will be important to carefully examine the broader implications and how it aligns with other policy goals.
Interesting to see the data on how Trump’s energy policies outperformed the Biden administration’s first year. It will be important to look at the full context and impacts, but these initial results seem significant.
Agree, the energy policy differences between the two administrations are certainly worth examining in more detail. The data on costs and production seems quite relevant.
The data on increased energy exports and lower consumer costs is interesting, but I would want to understand the full environmental, economic, and geopolitical implications before making any judgments.
The energy policy differences between the Trump and Biden administrations are clearly significant. I’m curious to hear more from a range of experts on the potential long-term impacts, both positive and negative.