On October 29, 2025, two influential articles—one from Common Dreams and the other from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, published in the Washington Times—brought renewed urgency and debate to the crossroads of American energy policy, artificial intelligence, and national security. As the United States faces mounting challenges both at home and abroad, the question of how to power the country's future has become more than a technical or environmental concern; it's a defining matter of national identity and global influence.
In the Common Dreams piece, co-founder Craig Brown delivered a stark message about the state of American democracy and the climate, warning, "I've never been more alarmed about the state of our democracy. The U.S. is sliding toward authoritarianism faster than ever, while corporate media turns a blind eye." Brown's call to action was more than just a plea for donations to keep independent journalism afloat—it was a rallying cry for vigilance as the so-called "gas-fed AI boom" threatens to derail US climate commitments. The publication, which famously rejects corporate advertising and keeps its content free for all, is seeking to raise $100,000 by November 1, 2025, to sustain its mission of informing, inspiring, and igniting change for the common good.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times featured a sharply contrasting perspective from Clifford D. May, writing for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. May's analysis, published the same day, argued that "national security requires energy security" and that "American greatness…requires energy dominance." This theme has found a new champion in President Trump, who recently established the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC), headed by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright—both now also sitting on the National Security Council. The NEDC represents a decisive shift from the previous administration's approach, which prioritized climate policy over energy expansion.
Under President Biden, the focus had been on an "energy transition," with climate envoy John Kerry advocating for keeping hydrocarbons in the ground and heavily subsidizing renewable energy sources. According to May, this strategy was based on what he described as the "dubious assertion that climate change is 'the existential challenge of our time.'" Despite these efforts, fossil fuels' share of US primary energy consumption actually rose from about 79% in January 2021 to roughly 82% by 2024, as May highlighted. The implication: America's appetite for fossil energy has only grown, regardless of policy intentions.
To underscore the stakes, May reached back into history, recalling how oil determined the outcomes of both World Wars. In World War I, the United States supplied up to 70% of the world's oil, and British statesman Lord Curzon famously declared that the Allies "floated to victory upon a wave of oil." In World War II, the inability of Axis powers to secure vital oil resources led to their defeat. "There was no way they could cope with a new army equipped with fleets of rampaging gasoline-powered land battleships and assisted by unmatched swarms of fighter aircraft," May quoted Robert Zubrin's 2007 book, Energy Victory.
Fast-forward to today, and the battleground has shifted from oil fields to the frontiers of artificial intelligence. As May noted, "AI will be a key component in military robots, drones and missiles, anti-drone and anti-missile systems—you name it." The data centers powering this AI revolution require "phenomenal amounts of energy," and the electricity must be reliable, available "even when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow," as Secretary Burgum put it at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' 'Powering U.S. Energy Dominance' event on October 24, 2025.
Yet, the challenge is not just about generating energy but also about controlling the materials and infrastructure that make advanced technology possible. May pointed out that China remains the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, with coal-burning power plants generating 60% of its electricity in 2023. China was responsible for 95% of new coal power plant construction worldwide that year, and it controls about 70% of global rare earth mining and up to 90% of processing—critical for both military and commercial technology. On October 9, 2025, Beijing imposed new export restrictions on products containing even small amounts of rare earths processed in China, signaling the geopolitical leverage these resources confer.
For the US, the path forward, as outlined by the NEDC and its supporters, is a broad-based push for "energy dominance." This means not only drilling for more oil and gas—"Drill, baby, drill!"—but also stepping up mining and processing of critical minerals—"Mine, baby, mine!" and "Process, baby, process!" as Secretary Burgum and May both echoed. Nuclear power, particularly small modular reactors that occupy little land and emit no greenhouse gases, is also being touted as essential for a reliable, clean, and powerful energy future.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this approach. The Common Dreams article warned that the "gas-fed AI boom" threatens to undermine US climate goals, suggesting that prioritizing fossil fuels and heavy industry over renewable energy could have dire consequences for the environment and democracy itself. Brown's plea for independent media support is rooted in the belief that mainstream outlets are failing to hold power to account, especially as the lines between corporate, political, and technological interests become increasingly blurred.
The debate is hardly academic. As the US and China vie for supremacy in AI and advanced manufacturing, energy policy has become a linchpin of both economic and military strategy. Secretary Burgum summed up the stakes succinctly: "Energy dominance is about prosperity at home and peace abroad," though, as May acknowledged, this "harsh reality" is being given a "brighter spin."
Looking back, previous administrations' reluctance to develop domestic energy resources and critical minerals is now being framed as a mistake—a mistake the current government is determined to correct, at least for the next three years. Whether this strategy will deliver the promised security and prosperity, or whether it will deepen environmental and political divides, remains to be seen.
As the fundraising appeal from Common Dreams reminds us, the stakes in this debate are not just technical or ideological—they're existential, touching on the future of democracy, the climate, and America's place in the world. With the clock ticking toward November and the world watching, how the US balances energy, security, and freedom may define the next chapter of its history.