“We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Adversarial re-check: all three sources cited by the prior researcher are REAL, live, and accurately quoted. EO 14154 'Unleashing American Energy' (signed Jan 20, 2025) was fetched and the quoted Sec. 2(a) policy language matches verbatim. The EIA MCRFPUS2 monthly series was fetched directly and every figure matches exactly: 13,437 thousand b/d (Dec 2024), 13,657 (Dec 2025), and 13,934 (Apr 2026) — the highest value in a series running back to 1920. The Washington Examiner piece is real (Callie Patteson, Dec 31, 2025), and the 'Drill, baby, drill definitely did not happen in any stretch of the imagination' quote is correctly attributed to Kirk Edwards, former chairman of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, alongside the 546-rig count (down 43 year-over-year). OUTCOME UPHELD at CHAMPIONED. Trump unambiguously LED this effort rather than merely supporting it: on day one he signed both EO 14154 and EO 14156 (Declaring a National Energy Emergency), directing agencies to use emergency authorities to facilitate leasing, siting, and production of domestic energy on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. On the 'dominant' half, the outcome objectively landed — crude production set an all-time record — and BLM primary data confirm 6,106 APDs approved in FY2025 (5,740 Federal), which BLM itself calls 'one of the highest annual totals since 2008.' It is NOT FULL, because the literal 'drill' half measurably did not happen: rig counts FELL, and the production gains are attributed to longer laterals and better completions rather than more drilling. REVISIONS APPLIED to the prior rating: (1) removed the unverifiable '55% year-over-year increase' in permits — BLM's page substantiates the ~6,000 figure but not that percentage; (2) removed the 'first-ever 100-million-metric-ton U.S. LNG export year' claim — EIA confirms only that GLOBAL LNG trade hit a record 56.3 Bcf/d in 2025 'driven largely by U.S. LNG export capacity expanding,' not the specific U.S. tonnage asserted; (3) added two primary sources (EO 14156 and BLM statistics). ATTRIBUTION CAVEAT surfaced by this review and weighed against the rating: BLM's own page states that 'the 2025 data primarily reflects the policy direction and processes in place at that time (i.e. previous administration),' and FY2025 began Oct 1, 2024 under Biden; production also rose only ~3.7% off a Biden-era baseline that was already at record levels. That weakens causal attribution and is why this does not reach FULL. NONPARTISAN CONSISTENCY TEST: the rubric defines CHAMPIONED as actively leading or driving the effort 'even if not fully enacted.' A president of either party who signed day-one executive orders driving a signature policy, whose agencies then acted on it, and whose headline metric hit an all-time record — while a secondary metric moved the wrong way — would receive CHAMPIONED under the same standard. The label sits on a genuine CHAMPIONED/PARTIAL boundary, which the 0.75 confidence reflects.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.