The U.S. is now producing more oil than any country in history. It’s a trend that’s been building in recent years, a remarkable turnaround since 2008 when exports were zero. You’d think it would be something to brag about — so why isn’t the Biden administration boasting? Scott Thuman reports.

The following is a transcript of a report from “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.” Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

When the government makes an announcement at the end of the work week, it’s frequently done to bury the news.

Last Jan. 26, a Friday, the Biden White House made public what it called a “pause” on new liquified natural gas — or LNG — export projects.

But instead of getting buried, the news triggered an immediate negative reaction, and not just from conservatives.

The Washington Post called it political symbolism and the wrong move. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia furious, calling it pure politics.

Sen. Joe Manchin: The White House has shown that it is so concerned with indulging radical climate activists that it’s willing to play politics with our energy security and that of our allies.

And The Wall Street Journal said it was a “gift” to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, because his country could benefit from reduced American gas exports.

As we’ve reported on Full Measure, U.S. liquified natural gas exports have risen dramatically, especially since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, American natural gas has helped Europe rely less on Russian product, whose profits were helping pay for the war against Ukraine.

Back in 2022, President Biden proudly struck a deal with Europe to supply more gas.

Biden: The United States, together with our international partners, we’re going to work to ensure an additional 15 — one-five — 15 billion cubic meters of liquified natural gas — LNG— for Europe this year.

So why the decision now to stop approvals for new export facilities? For many, including energy state Democrats like Henry Cuellar of Texas, it’s a big mistake by the Biden administration, done to please climate change voters.

Scott: You talked about the fact that there are people in your state who are going to complain that this hurts jobs. Do you think that this is purely a political decision?

Henry Cuellar: I don’t want to speak for the White House at all, but, in my opinion, just not speaking for the White House, yes.

Scott: It’s hard to look at it and not say, “It’s an election year; this is catering to a certain block of voters that the president needs for reelection.” Am I right?

Henry Cuellar: You’re right. And listen, if they’re worried about the energy, clean goals that we have, which we all are, so let’s say you put a pause on American LNG. Do you think the Middle East is going to produce energy cleaner than we are? No. So I would rather have American jobs created here and cleaner energy than some of the other countries where they’ll get the jobs, they’ll get the money.

That’s a theme picked up by a Senate energy committee skeptical about the administration’s freeze on LNG export facilities.

Sen. John Barrasso / R-Wyoming: In times of war, is it wise to give our allies and partners in neutral parties across the world an excuse to do business with our enemies?

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith / R-Mississippi: And to no one’s surprise, we’re here again talking about the Biden administration just causing a train wreck for domestic energy policy.

David Turk, the deputy secretary of energy, was left trying to defend the move to stop new LNG projects.

David Turk: So, I feel incredibly proud to be part of an administration that’s taking head-on the climate challenge that’s facing our country, and we’re making remarkable strides along those lines. I also think, in addition to the climate impacts of more and more exports of natural gas, we also need to take into account the economic consequences for American consumers,

The Biden administration insists, despite the pause, U.S. liquified natural gas exports will still be up year-to-year for the next six years due to projects that had already been approved.

For many, though, including members of the president’s party, it’s the timing of the decision that draws the most criticism.

Scott: If you had the ability to say, our production is through the roof better than it’s ever been, our exports through the roof, pulling in all sorts of income, you would think a White House would be shouting that from the mountaintops.

Cuellar: They should. And I think this administration is missing a key point that is important to the American public. And that is, we’re producing jobs. We’re producing also clean energy, the oil and gas, but we’re doing it in such a way that it’s cleaner and trying to reach those clean energy goals that we’ve set.

Sharyl (on-camera): So how long is the pause on the new export facilities going to last?

Scott: Well the Biden administration hasn’t given a precise date, but in the last few weeks, they’ve indicated they think it will take several months.

Sharyl: So tell me if this is true: we were helping Europe with our exports not rely so much on Russian energy. How do they feel about us freezing these exports?

Scott: It’s been a bit of a mixed bag, as far as reaction goes. Publicly, you’ve got European leaders who say the existing and the already-approved exports — that’s enough to cover their needs. But there are others who are pretty critical, and they say that they’ve always expected that the United States will be the, quote, “global guarantor of energy security.”

Watch video here.

Visit The Sharyl Attkisson Store today

Shop Now

Unique gifts for independent thinkers

Proceeds benefit independent journalism