Beyond ‘all’ and ‘best’: A common-sense energy strategy for national security

Rising tensions in the Middle East and renewed volatility in global oil markets have brought energy security back to the forefront of the national conversation. As crude prices climb amid instability involving Iran and key shipping routes, President Trump pointed out that short-term price spikes will accompany broader strategic efforts to preserve stability, and reaffirmed that prices will “drop like a rock” soon. Moments like this underscore why energy policy must be grounded in resilience and long-term supply security.

For more than a decade, America’s energy debate has been shaped by ambitious climate goals and rapid technological change rather practical solutions to real issues. Affordability and national security have often been treated as secondary concerns, especially as policymakers pursued aggressive timelines to shrink domestic fossil fuel production. Today, surging electricity demand, intensifying geopolitical tensions, and the race for artificial intelligence dominance are reinforcing the importance of a reliable and resilient energy foundation. The U.S. cannot afford to retire dependable energy sources faster than it can replace them.

This moment has sharpened the divide between two competing energy frameworks — “all of the above” and “best of the above.” Some leaders on the left have gravitated toward an “all of the above” posture, temporarily supporting all energy sources in hopes of keeping costs down while meeting rising demand. Others, particularly on the right, have advanced a “best of the above” philosophy. As Department of Energy Undersecretary nominee Kyle Haustveit told a Senate committee, “Not all energy is created equally, and not all energy types should be deployed across every region of the U.S. and the world.” In practice, that stance has been interpreted as excluding specific technologies, such as wind, from consideration.

America doesn’t need energy approaches based on catchy slogans. We need energy common sense: expanding baseload capacity, prioritizing reliability, and tailoring deployment where each technology makes the most sense for long-term security. Reliable baseload generation remains the backbone of grid stability.

A commonsense energy approach not only taps into each energy source strategically but prioritizes energy addition over energy transition. This approach solves for the political trend of revisiting previously granted permits or reconsidering federally-backed financing for already approved projects in the name of transitioning away from energy sources deemed politically unfavorable. Normalizing the revocation of fully permitted projects establishes a dangerous precedent which destabilizes energy investment and security.

The international market underscores the stakes — Britain’s post-Ukraine energy crisis illustrated the real-world consequences of supply constraints and price spikes. Millions struggled to heat their homes and energy poverty surged highlighting how energy transitions that outpace reliable replacement carry tangible costs. The Iranian conflict could have similar impacts on the global community, and America’s infrastructure will be put to the test.

The rapid expansion of AI, cloud computing and data centers is increasing electricity consumption across the country. Neither constraining supply while demand accelerates nor launching everything, everywhere at once are serious governing strategies. Both risk destabilizing regional grids and amplifying price volatility, while contradicting the common-sense approach the White House set forth.

All energy source carries tradeoffs. Coal provides reliable, dispatchable power and sustains local economies, but it remains the most carbon-intensive of the major fuels and is poorly suited for dense urban environments. Solar is modular and increasingly affordable, yet intermittent and often mismatched with constant industrial loads. Natural gas can scale quickly and affordably, but cannot alone guarantee long-term grid stability. Wind expands capacity in offshore and rural regions, though it often faces integration costs and local siting opposition.

Energy policy should be guided not by ideology, but by reliability, affordability, scalability, and strategic resilience. At a moment when global instability can ripple through energy markets overnight, the U.S. cannot afford wishful thinking or fragmented approaches. Energy common sense is not a compromise — it is a strategy. It secures supply, strengthens the grid, and positions America to lead in an increasingly competitive and energy-hungry world.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to embrace it, but whether we can afford not to.

Guy Caruso is a former administrator for the Energy Information Administration and strategic advisor for GAIN.