In an opinion piece, Josh Freed, senior vice president for climate and energy at Third Way, argued that the U.S. needs energy from diverse sources to endure supply shocks and that energy solutions should come from all sources, not just those favored by one political party. The argument lands squarely on the old problem of centralized power pretending to be resilience: when a few institutions decide what counts as acceptable energy, everyone else is left to absorb the consequences when supply gets shaky.
Who Gets to Decide
Freed wrote that in February the White House was touting record liquefied natural gas exports, celebrating withdrawals from international agreements, and bragging about propping up coal and nixing clean energy technologies. Those are not neutral technical choices; they are top-down decisions about which energy systems get elevated and which get cut off, all while the people living with the fallout are expected to call it policy.
He said those actions were described by the White House as saving families thousands of dollars and reflecting an "unwavering commitment to energy independence, economic prosperity, and putting America First."
That language is the usual manufactured consent routine: wrap a political agenda in the language of family savings and national strength, then hope nobody notices that the same apparatus is deciding which fuels get backed, which technologies get sidelined, and which risks get passed down the chain.
What the Op-Ed Is Arguing
Freed argued that the U.S. needs energy from diverse sources to endure supply shocks. He also said energy solutions should come from all sources, not just those favored by one political party. The point is simple enough: a system built on a narrow set of favored options is brittle, and when shocks hit, the cost lands on ordinary people rather than on the people making the decisions.
The op-ed frames energy diversity as a matter of resilience. That is the core claim: if the energy system is spread across multiple sources, it is better able to withstand disruptions. The piece does not present this as a partisan slogan but as a practical response to instability. Still, the political context is impossible to miss. Freed places the White House’s February messaging right next to his argument about supply shocks, showing how quickly energy policy gets folded into partisan theater.
The Party Line Problem
Freed’s criticism is aimed at the habit of treating energy as a loyalty test for one political camp or another. He said solutions should come from all sources, not just those favored by one political party. That is a direct rebuke to the way energy policy gets narrowed into a contest over branding, with each side claiming to protect families while pushing its own preferred mix of fuels and technologies.
The White House, according to Freed, was celebrating record liquefied natural gas exports, withdrawals from international agreements, support for coal, and the rejection of clean energy technologies. The op-ed presents those moves as part of a broader political posture rather than as a serious answer to supply shocks. The result is a familiar pattern: leaders announce strength, markets and infrastructure absorb the strain, and ordinary people are told the whole thing is for their own good.
Freed’s piece does not offer a grassroots energy alternative or a mutual aid model. It stays inside the language of policy and diversification. But even within that frame, the message is clear enough: energy security cannot be built by locking the public into one political script and calling it independence. The system may prefer slogans, but supply shocks do not care about slogans.