NEWT GINGRICH: Picking Energy Winners And Losers Is How America Falls Behind

President Donald Trump’s Tuesday speech in Iowa made one thing abundantly clear: it is urgent that we get American energy policy right.

The American way of life has always depended on abundant, affordable energy. When energy is accessible at fair prices with minimal overhead, businesses and families thrive—and America can compete globally.

Trump’s policies on trade, taxes, and deregulation are setting the stage for an AI and robotics-fueled manufacturing boom. But that boom won’t happen without reliable, affordable energy to meet the rapidly increasing demand.

History tells us that energy scarcity is the biggest threat to the American economy. Americans understand this instinctively. A recent poll from America’s New Majority Project, an initiative of Gingrich 360, revealed that 74 percent of Americans understand that electricity demand is rising, 95 percent say it is important to update the country’s electrical grid, and 71 percent support building more power plants. These numbers represent massive majorities of Americans. In our deeply divided political environment, this level of consensus is remarkable.

However, that consensus begins to fracture when Americans are asked to choose between reliability and renewable energy. When framed as a trade-off, opinion splits nearly evenly. This division is predictable—and avoidable.

Given the enormity of our future energy needs, policymakers should not force Americans to make an unnecessary choice.

A balanced system incorporating renewables and storage alongside fuel-based sources of power ensures both affordability and reliability. We need more of everything. Intentionally excluding vital energy sources, fuel-based or renewable, reduces supply and drives up prices. This harms families and businesses. This is not abstract economic theory. It is common sense.