So cool!!! President DJT
Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-15 06:34:00 — trumpstruth.org
Please provide the excerpt from “So cool!!! President DJT” that you would like me to review and write about.
Home Blog
So cool!!! President DJT
An extraordinary White House meeting
An extraordinary White House meeting
NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-15 06:20:00 — www.nytimes.com
Trump’s White House Meeting with Oil Executives: A Glimpse into Unchecked Presidential Power
Last year, President Trump convened a closed-door meeting with top oil and gas executives at the White House, a gathering that has since come under renewed scrutiny for its extraordinary display of presidential authority and its implications for U.S. energy and environmental policy.
Trump’s Direct Interventions
According to reporting from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in the new book “Regime Change,” the March 2025 meeting revealed Trump’s deep affinity for the fossil fuel industry and his willingness to use executive power to advance its interests. When oil executives complained about new Climate Superfund bills in Vermont and New York, Trump’s policy adviser, Stephen Miller, immediately texted Attorney General Pam Bondi, promising action. Less than two months later, the administration sued both states to block enforcement of those laws.
In another exchange, after ExxonMobil’s CEO raised concerns about European Union climate regulations, Trump instructed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to impose additional tariffs on the E.U. until those regulations were abandoned. The president also directed his team to solicit a list of ten energy projects from the executives that the White House could help fast-track, specifically asking them to highlight how much more energy these projects would produce during his presidency.
Aggressive Push for Fossil Fuels
The meeting, as described by Swan, upended the usual dynamic between government and industry. Rather than being lobbied, the Trump administration was actively urging oil companies to increase drilling and production. The message from the White House was clear: “We’re going to open up the floodgates. We’re going to do whatever you want, just so long as you give us extraordinary energy production immediately.”
Trump’s approach stood in stark contrast to his hostility toward renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Swan noted that Trump’s economic worldview is rooted in the heavy industry of his formative years, leading him to romanticize and reward the fossil fuel sector.
Policy Consequences
The consequences of this approach were far-reaching. In one notable instance, after Chevron’s CEO pushed for an extension of the company’s license to operate in Venezuela, the Trump administration seized the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and Chevron soon expanded its presence there.
Environmental protections also suffered under Trump’s leadership. The administration moved to open habitats of endangered species to development by changing the federal definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. This change, announced by the Interior and Commerce Departments, meant that destroying the habitat of an endangered species would no longer be illegal—a move environmentalists called the most severe rollback of wildlife protections in half a century.
Executive Power Without Precedent
Executives present at the meeting described Trump as wielding executive power with an unprecedented sense of authority. One attendee remarked that they would “never want a Democrat to have that same sense of executive authority.”
Conclusion
President Trump’s actions during and after the March 2025 meeting with oil executives illustrate a pattern of using presidential power to aggressively advance the interests of the fossil fuel industry, often at the expense of environmental protections and established policy processes. The episode offers a stark example of how Trump’s personal affinities and executive authority shaped the direction of American energy policy, leaving even the most powerful industry leaders “almost in awe” of the president’s approach.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/climate/climate-an-extraordinary-white-house-meeting.html
Data centers need a lot of energy, but President Donald Trump’s estimate is far too high
Data centers need a lot of energy, but President Donald Trump’s estimate is far too high
PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-14 12:28:00 — www.politifact.com
Donald Trump Greatly Exaggerates AI’s Energy Demands, Fact-Checks Show
At the recent NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump made a striking claim about the energy demands of artificial intelligence. Trump asserted, “They need, just as an industry, more energy than the entire country produces right now, when you think about it, which is incredible. So, take all of the energy that the United States produces, and that one industry — which is so big, so powerful — it needs more than that. In fact, some people say almost double.”
This statement, delivered as Trump continues to push for aggressive AI development in the U.S., has drawn sharp scrutiny from energy experts and fact-checkers. While it is true that AI’s energy requirements are growing rapidly, the numbers Trump cited are not supported by available data.
What the Experts Say
Multiple studies from federal agencies and energy-focused think tanks directly contradict Trump’s estimate. For example, a December 2025 report from the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projects that by 2028, data centers — the backbone of AI — will account for 6.7% to 12% of U.S. electricity consumption. Another report by the Electric Power Research Institute estimates data centers could use 9% to 17% of national electricity by 2030, up from 4% to 5% today.
Looking further ahead, the federal Energy Information Administration concludes that by 2050, data centers’ electricity demand will reach a maximum of 15% of total U.S. demand. The highest estimate found by the World Resources Institute, from a Boston Consulting Group report, suggests data centers could use about a quarter of the 2023 level of all U.S. electricity generation.
Fact-Check: Trump’s Numbers Don’t Add Up
All credible projections put AI-related energy use between 6% and 25% of total U.S. electricity demand over the coming decades. Some studies suggest AI’s energy footprint could double from current levels, but none come close to Trump’s claim that AI would require as much or even double the entire country’s energy production.
Kenneth Gillingham, a Yale University economist specializing in energy and environmental issues, noted, “Trump’s estimate is very high relative to credible projections.”
Conclusion
President Trump’s assertion that the AI industry will soon need more energy than the entire United States produces — or even double that amount — is not supported by the facts. While AI’s energy demands are significant and growing, they are nowhere near the scale Trump described. Multiple independent and federal studies confirm that the real numbers are far lower, with the highest estimates still well below Trump’s claims. This statement contains an element of truth regarding rising demand but ignores key facts, earning it a “Mostly False” rating from fact-checkers.
Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jul/14/donald-trump/ai-data-centers-electricty-grid/
Trump will speak on elections in Thursday primetime address : NPR
Trump will speak on elections in Thursday primetime address : NPR
NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-07-15 01:00:00 — www.npr.org
Trump Teases “Big News” as He Amplifies False Election Claims Ahead of Primetime Address
President Donald Trump is set to deliver a primetime address this Thursday, signaling he will focus on elections and potentially revisit long-debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has recently escalated calls for Republicans to pass stricter federal voting rules ahead of the November midterm elections.
Repeating Baseless Fraud Claims
Asked for a preview of his speech, Trump offered few details, stating, “It doesn’t get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country.” He added, “We’ll be discussing other things, too. It’s going to be a very big announcement.” Trump has a history of using high-profile presidential addresses to deliver politically charged messages, and Thursday’s speech appears poised to amplify election lies before a national audience.
On Monday, Trump repeated baseless claims of voter fraud in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, asserting that Republican Spencer Pratt lost due to fraud and pointing to California’s slow vote count. Federal prosecutors have said they are investigating fraud in the state after Trump drew attention to the claim, but there is no evidence supporting his allegations.
A Pattern of Election Denial
Trump’s preoccupation with voter fraud and election security dates back to 2016, when he refused to say if he would accept defeat to Hillary Clinton. After winning, he formed a voting integrity commission to support his claim that widespread fraud cost him the popular vote, but the commission disbanded without finding any such evidence.
After losing the 2020 election to Biden, Trump again claimed cheating, focusing on Biden’s narrow win in Georgia. Trump called the Georgia secretary of state and pressured him to “find 11,780 votes,” just enough to overturn Biden’s victory. Although Trump and several allies were indicted in the state, the charges were later dropped. Multiple audits and reviews—including those led by Republicans and Trump’s own attorney general—found no significant fraud in 2020.
Renewed Attacks and Policy Push
Before his 2024 victory, Trump was again laying groundwork to claim cheating if he lost. Since returning to office, he has filled his administration with officials who back his false claims of 2020 election fraud. Trump has made voting regulation central to his current term, frequently declaring he won the White House “three times” and demanding legislation for voter ID and sharp limits on mail-in voting. As midterms approach, Trump has stirred new claims to cast doubt on results that could threaten his power in Washington.
Trump has also targeted states that allow mail-in ballots, saying he called a U.S. attorney in California to demand scrutiny of the governor’s primary as votes were counted. Last week, he ousted the remaining members of the federal Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan panel that resisted his push to require would-be voters to document U.S. citizenship before registering.
Conclusion
President Trump’s continued promotion of false election claims and his efforts to reshape voting laws remain central to his political strategy. Despite repeated audits and investigations finding no significant fraud in 2020, Trump persists in amplifying baseless allegations, casting doubt on the integrity of American elections and seeking to influence future outcomes. As he prepares for his latest primetime address, the nation watches to see how far he will go in repeating these disproven narratives.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/15/nx-s1-5894580/trump-elections-primetime-address
WATCH LIVE: Jay Clayton testifies in confirmation hearing for director of national intelligence
WATCH LIVE: Jay Clayton testifies in confirmation hearing for director of national intelligence
PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-14 19:40:00 — www.pbs.org
President Donald Trump’s Handling of Intelligence Nominee Sparks Congressional Standoff
President Donald Trump’s approach to filling the director of national intelligence role has drawn significant scrutiny and fueled a standoff in Congress. Trump picked Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the position last month amid mounting pressure from Congress to name a permanent replacement for Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down in May due to her husband’s cancer diagnosis.
Trump faced intense pushback after naming Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting director following Gabbard’s departure. This decision led to a standoff, with Democrats declaring they would refuse to renew foreign intelligence powers unless Trump withdrew Pulte’s nomination and selected a permanent nominee.
Despite bipartisan praise for Clayton and Republican efforts to expedite his confirmation, Trump declared he was delaying Clayton’s nomination just hours before the initial scheduled hearing in June. He formally nominated Clayton as permanent director on July 1, nearly a month after the delay.
Trump’s management of the nomination process—delaying hearings and initially choosing a controversial acting director—has been met with criticism and resistance from both parties. The situation highlights ongoing concerns about Trump’s decision-making and the impact of his actions on critical national security roles.
In conclusion, Trump’s handling of the director of national intelligence nomination process has resulted in political gridlock and raised questions about his approach to key appointments. The controversy underscores the importance of transparent and timely decision-making in matters of national security.
Donald Trump’s cargo toll plan in Strait of Hormuz would have been unprecedented, and likely illegal
Donald Trump’s cargo toll plan in Strait of Hormuz would have been unprecedented, and likely illegal
PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-14 12:42:00 — www.politifact.com
Trump’s Hormuz Strait Toll Plan: Legally Baseless, Quickly Abandoned
In a striking move, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that “The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World.” He declared that the process would begin immediately, reiterating on Fox News that the U.S. would be “reimbursed for protection” in the strait.
Within a day, Trump reversed course, citing talks with Gulf region allies who, he said, would instead offer investment and trade deals.
A Familiar, False Theme
Trump’s demand for allies to pay for U.S. military protection is not new. PolitiFact previously rated as false his claim that South Korea didn’t pay the U.S. for its military protection. Trump has also falsely stated that Kuwait never paid the U.S. for reversing Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion, and he has repeatedly pushed NATO allies to pay more for their own defense.
No Legal Basis for Tolls
Military and legal experts overwhelmingly rejected Trump’s proposal to impose a U.S.-run tolling system in the Strait of Hormuz. Such a move would violate centuries of international law guaranteeing free passage through international waters. The U.S. itself fought the Barbary pirates in the early 1800s to end the practice of paying tribute for safe passage—a principle now enshrined in the Law of the Sea Convention and customary international law.
Experts noted that charging any fee for transiting the Strait of Hormuz would be a clear violation of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Even though the U.S. is not a party to the convention, it considers the right of transit passage to be binding customary law. Trump’s own secretary of state, Marco Rubio, recently affirmed that “no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.”
Practical and Diplomatic Risks
Beyond its illegality, experts said Trump’s plan would be unenforceable without significant military action and would set a dangerous precedent. If the U.S. could charge tolls, so could other countries bordering international straits, dramatically increasing global shipping costs and risking retaliation.
Conclusion
Trump’s brief push to impose U.S. tolls on ships in the Strait of Hormuz was not only legally baseless but contradicted longstanding U.S. and international policy. The episode fits a pattern of Trump making sweeping, false claims about allies’ financial obligations and proposing actions that experts say would violate international law and backfire on U.S. interests.
Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jul/14/strait-hormuz-cargo-ship-toll-trump-iran/
Trump to Iran: 'We're going to hit them very hard'
Trump to Iran: 'We're going to hit them very hard'
Administration News — 2026-07-14 21:56:00 — thehill.com
Trump Warns Iran of Escalating U.S. Strikes: “We’re Going to Hit Them Very Hard”
President Trump on Tuesday issued a stark warning to Iran, declaring that the United States is “going to hit them very hard” following the fourth consecutive day of U.S. military strikes on the Islamic regime. Speaking with Fox News’s Trey Yingst, Trump outlined his administration’s approach to the ongoing conflict, stating that the U.S. will gradually expand its strikes across Iran’s infrastructure.
Trump’s Threat of Escalation
Trump’s comments signal a clear intent to intensify military pressure on Iran. He emphasized that the U.S. response would not be limited to isolated strikes but would instead target broader elements of Iran’s infrastructure. “We’re going to hit them very…” Trump said, underscoring the administration’s willingness to escalate the conflict if necessary.
Context and Implications
The president’s remarks come amid heightened tensions and ongoing military engagement in the region. By publicly vowing to expand strikes, Trump is sending a message of deterrence to Iran while also raising concerns about the potential for further escalation and instability.
Fact-Check and Analysis
Within the excerpt, Trump’s statements focus on the promise of increased military action rather than making specific factual claims about Iran or the conflict. However, his rhetoric continues a pattern of aggressive posturing and public threats, which have drawn scrutiny in the past for their potential to inflame international tensions.
Conclusion
President Trump’s warning that the U.S. will “hit them very hard” marks a significant escalation in rhetoric and signals a readiness to intensify military operations against Iran. As the situation develops, Trump’s statements and the administration’s actions will remain under close scrutiny for their impact on regional stability and international relations.
Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5968822-trump-threatens-iran-infrastructure/
Gov. Hochul orders a pause on data centers in New York for up to a year : NPR
Gov. Hochul orders a pause on data centers in New York for up to a year : NPR
NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-07-14 15:24:00 — www.npr.org
President Trump Opposed State Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Industry
As New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order pausing the construction of large data centers—the first statewide pause of its kind in the country—attention has turned to how leaders at both the state and federal levels are responding to the rapid growth of these energy-intensive facilities.
Within this debate, President Trump’s stance on the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers stands out. According to the report, at one point, President Trump told states not to regulate the artificial intelligence industry. He later stated that he would get tech companies to ensure their data centers would support their own energy needs.
Trump’s position reflects a broader federal ambiguity on how to address the environmental and economic impacts of hyperscale data centers, which are critical for powering AI and internet services but also raise concerns about energy consumption and local community effects.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Approach
The excerpt does not provide evidence of false claims or direct attacks by Trump in this context, but it does highlight his clear opposition to state-level regulation of the AI industry. This position is notable as states like New York, Maine, and Virginia move forward with their own policies—ranging from moratoriums to new taxes on data center energy use—aimed at protecting consumers and managing energy demand.
Conclusion
President Trump’s approach, urging states not to regulate the AI industry and instead relying on tech companies to manage their own energy needs, contrasts sharply with the growing bipartisan movement at the state level to impose stricter oversight on data centers. As more states consider similar measures, the divide between federal and state strategies for managing the digital infrastructure powering modern life is likely to remain a key issue in the ongoing debate over technology, energy, and regulation.
Daylight saving time made permanent by US House vote: ‘Americans are tired of the clock change’ | House of Representatives
Daylight saving time made permanent by US House vote: ‘Americans are tired of the clock change’ | House of Representatives
US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-14 16:59:00 — www.theguardian.com
Trump Celebrates House Passage of Permanent Daylight Saving Time Bill, Calls It a “Win” for Republicans
Donald Trump has thrown his support behind the House’s recent approval of a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent, framing the move as a victory for the Republican Party. After the House passed the Sunshine Protection Act in a 308-117 vote, Trump posted on Truth Social, calling the bill a “very nice WIN for the Republican Party” and stating, “We are going with the far more popular alternative, Saving Daylight, which gives you a longer, brighter Day – And who can be against that – This is an easy one!”
Trump’s Framing and the Broader Debate
Trump’s comments position the bill as a straightforward, popular solution, emphasizing the appeal of “a longer, brighter Day.” However, the issue is more nuanced. The bill, which has bipartisan support, would end the twice-yearly clock changes observed in most states and make daylight saving time the permanent standard. States would still have the option to opt out and remain on standard time.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims
Trump’s assertion that the bill is a “very nice WIN for the Republican Party” overlooks the bipartisan nature of the legislation, which has support from both Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, while Trump describes the move as “far more popular,” the debate over permanent daylight saving time versus standard time is ongoing. Experts in sleep medicine have argued that permanent standard time is better aligned with human circadian rhythms, and there is no unanimous agreement among the public or scientific community about which system is preferable.
Conclusion
Trump’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Sunshine Protection Act simplifies a complex issue that has sparked national debate for decades. While he touts the bill as a clear win and an easy choice, the reality is that the question of permanent daylight saving time remains contentious, with significant debate among lawmakers, experts, and the public. As the bill moves to the Senate, the discussion over the best approach to timekeeping in the United States is far from settled.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/14/house-committee-advances-daylight-saving-time-bill
Trump’s Canceled Plan to Charge a Toll in the Strait of Hormuz: What to Know
Trump’s Canceled Plan to Charge a Toll in the Strait of Hormuz: What to Know
NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-14 14:25:00 — www.nytimes.com
President Trump Reverses Course on Strait of Hormuz Fees, Citing Gulf Investment Promises
President Trump on Tuesday reversed his previous announcement that the United States would impose steep fees on cargo shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, marking yet another abrupt policy shift in his approach to the ongoing conflict with Iran. Just one day earlier, Trump had declared that the U.S. would charge a 20 percent fee on shipping through the vital waterway—a move that contradicted months of public statements from his own administration, which had maintained that such fees would violate international law.
Trump’s reversal was delivered in a lengthy social media post, where he stated, “Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States.” He later told reporters that Gulf leaders had persuaded him to accept investments in U.S. companies instead of imposing the controversial fees, which experts warned could have more than doubled shipping costs for oil passing through the strait.
Contradictory Statements and Policy Shifts
Initially, Trump defended the proposed toll as a way for the U.S. to recover the cost of providing military protection to vessels in the region, calling it “a matter of FAIRNESS” on social media. However, after widespread criticism and warnings from his own officials—including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both insisted that international law prohibits any country from charging tolls on international waterways—Trump abandoned the plan. “I don’t think anybody should be able to charge a fee for the strait,” he said, describing his new approach as “much better.”
Despite Trump’s claim that the strait was “open to ALL Ship traffic except for Iran,” the reality is that shipping through the area has nearly ceased as the U.S. and Iran have exchanged strikes, effectively ending a month-old cease-fire and causing volatility in global oil prices.
Unclear Details on Gulf Investment Deals
Trump’s new plan centers on trade and investment deals with Persian Gulf states, but details remain scarce. He has promised that these investments will be “MASSIVE but, at the same time, extraordinarily good for them, and their future,” and claimed that the U.S. will see “Factories, Plants, and Equipment pour into the United States at Historic levels, which will create additional millions of High Paying AMERICAN Jobs!” However, as of Tuesday, it was unclear which countries had agreed to invest or what form these investments would take.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims
Trump’s statements about the strait being open to all but Iranian ships are contradicted by reports that shipping traffic has nearly stopped due to ongoing hostilities. Additionally, his initial proposal to charge a toll was at odds with international law and with the public stance of his own administration. The details of the promised investment deals remain unsubstantiated, with no evidence provided to support claims of historic job creation or economic benefit.
Conclusion
President Trump’s rapid reversal on the Strait of Hormuz tolls highlights a pattern of shifting positions and unverified promises in his handling of the conflict with Iran. While he now touts investment deals as a replacement for controversial shipping fees, the lack of concrete details and the contradiction of earlier statements raise questions about the administration’s strategy and credibility in managing this critical international crisis.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/world/middleeast/trump-iran-strait-hormuz-toll-oil.html