This week, Chinese President Xi Jinping travels to Washington for a state visit with President Trump, their second face-to-face meeting this year. Energy is likely to be high on the agenda, particularly the fallout from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

One of the more surprising developments since Iran largely closed off the Strait of Hormuz has been how little damage it's done to China's economy. Analysts widely expected the disruption—given China's heavy reliance on Gulf crude—to hit hard. The data tells a different story.

What happened? How much of this outcome is owed to the country's careful planning, diverse energy sourcing, or demand reduction? And what does all of this say about the ways energy security is shifting—and perhaps being redefined—in China?

Today on the show, Bill Loveless speaks with Erica Downs and Michal Meidan, who have been studying how China has responded to the biggest oil shock in history, and what it says about the future of energy security.

Erica Downs is a senior research scholar at CGEP, where she focuses on Chinese energy markets and geopolitics.

Michal Meidan leads China Energy Research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Read their post, How China Is Managing Lower Oil Imports, on the Center on Global Energy Policy's blog, Energy Explained.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Dara Diamond, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

More than six months into the war with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz crisis continues to cause turmoil in the Gulf region and global energy markets with no apparent end in sight.

Tanker traffic through the strait has collapsed to a fraction of its pre-war baseline, and the fallout is spreading. Brent crude broke $100 a barrel for the first time since July, and US diesel prices have climbed above $6 a gallon for the first time in history.

The US Navy blockade has all but shut down Iranian oil exports, but the conflict is no longer confined to Iran and the strait. Last week, Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline was struck and could stay offline for weeks. Iran-aligned Houthi forces seized Yemen's Red Sea coastline. And a Panama-flagged tanker carrying Iraqi fuel oil caught fire in the crossfire—a sign that oil flows well beyond Iran's borders are now at risk.

Meanwhile, President Trump continues to predict the war will end shortly after the US midterms—even as his own administration reportedly warns privately that Iran can hold out longer than that.

So, with the conflict spreading, has this become a multi-front regional war? How much further could oil and diesel prices climb? And how does this conflict unwind and actually end?

On today's show, Jason Bordoff speaks with three scholars at the Center on Global Energy Policy: Richard Nephew, Daniel Sternoff, and Karen Young. Together, they discuss the widening war, its impacts on global energy markets, and Middle East geopolitics.

It's been a tumultuous year for Venezuela, marked by political upheaval and deadly earthquakes. Then, in late August, the Trump administration announced a deal for over 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil reserves—and a 35% stake in North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP). The move could turn a little-known private company into one of the world's largest corporate holders of oil reserves.

But NABEP wasn't the only headline. In the same week, Chevron pledged $7 billion to double its Venezuelan production, Italian major ENI moved forward on a massive oil field agreement, and GE Vernova signed on to rehabilitate the country's crippled electric grid. All told, Venezuela signed deals covering more than 150 billion barrels of oil resources—an unprecedented scale-up for a sector starved of investment for over two decades.

Yet for all the fanfare, basic questions remain unresolved. What are the terms and legal basis for the deal? What does direct US government equity in Venezuelan oil actually mean for American energy security and gas prices at the pump? And where does this deal fit in the long energy history between the US and Venezuela—is this a genuine turning point, or just the latest swing in a cycle of investments and setbacks that hasn't delivered lasting progress for ordinary Venezuelans?

Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with Luisa Palacios and Bob McNally.

Luisa is an adjunct senior research scholar here at the center, where she also served as CGEP's head of research. Before joining CGEP, Luisa was chairwoman of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, the US refining arm of Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA.

Bob is the founder and president of Rapidan Energy Group, an independent energy consulting and market advisory firm. From 2001 to 2003 he served on the White House National Economic Council as special assistant to President George W. Bush. And in 2003, he was the senior director for international energy on the National Security Council. His 2017 book, Crude Volatility: The History and the Future of Boom-Bust Oil Prices, examines the history of oil price swings.

Advanced technologies, a return to domestic manufacturing, and the race to control energy production while also confronting surging demand for electricity. All of these factors mean that for the US, energy security and national security are increasingly centered on critical minerals.

But the processing and refining of vital materials like copper, lithium, and graphite is largely done overseas, heavily concentrated in the hands of global competitors like China. This has sparked an urgent, bipartisan push to re-industrialize America and secure the supply chains necessary for everything from military defense to the AI revolution.

So can public sector funding catalyze sustainable private enterprise without over-regulating the market? How much domestic mining, processing, and recycling can the US unlock quickly and safely? And what role can emerging baseload power technologies like advanced geothermal and small modular nuclear reactors play in meeting our soaring energy needs?

Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with the Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson, about her office's mission to restructure and secure America's energy supply chains, from mining to recycling.

Audrey leads the US Department of Energy's Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, where she oversees one of the nation's largest energy R&D portfolios. Previously, she co-founded Franklin Mountain Energy, a private oil and gas company in the Permian Basin, where she served as CFO and executive vice president. Before that Audrey was a managing partner at Copper Trail Partners, an energy private equity platform.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Energy abundance means different things in today's global context than it did even a decade ago. It is about expanding electricity access while meeting rising energy demand. It is about navigating geopolitical fragmentation, limited government support, and shifting development priorities. And it is about leveraging new technologies to deliver reliable power at scale.

But the challenge is not just technological. It is institutional and financial. Many low- and middle-income countries face high capital costs, limited access to financing, and policy frameworks that struggle to keep pace with growing demand.

Solving this challenge is a priority for both the Center on Global Energy Policy and The Rockefeller Foundation. That's why this past spring the two organizations launched a high-level panel to advance "universal energy abundance," an idea that positions reliable, affordable energy as a cornerstone of economic growth, industrialization, and opportunity in emerging and developing economies.

So what does it take to move from energy scarcity and toward energy abundance? Can international institutions, governments, and investors come together to mobilize the scale of investment required? And how can emerging economies balance the urgency of expanding energy access with the need for affordability, reliability, and sustainability?

Today on the show, we're revisiting a conversation that Jason Bordoff had back in April with Rajiv Shah, president of The Rockefeller Foundation, about the high-level panel and its goals.

Rajiv has led The Rockefeller Foundation since 2017. Prior to that, during the Obama administration, he led the US Agency for International Development as its administrator. He also served on the National Security Council, at the US Department of Agriculture, and held leadership roles at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Abundance and affordability have become buzzwords among policymakers, who often have sharply different interpretations of how to attain them. To some, an energy abundance agenda means fewer regulatory barriers to produce more clean, cheap power. Others, however, question whether the narrative glosses over the hard trade-offs around land use, community concerns, or environmental impacts.

Yet even as data centers, surging power demand, and rising electricity costs dominate public discourse around energy, how we talk about decarbonization in mainstream politics has radically changed. So what have we learned from major climate policies like the Inflation Reduction Act? And what does the trajectory of these policies say about the durability of climate politics today?

Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with Matthew Yglesias, who argues that energy policy cannot be siloed off as merely a climate issue—contending that clean energy progress is far more politically and economically durable when tied directly to economic growth, industrial capacity, and grid infrastructure rather than consumer sacrifice.

Matthew is the author of "Slow Boring," a substack about US politics and policy. He also co-hosts The Argument, a podcast on which he and co-host Jerusalem Demsas debate politics and policy. His most recent book, The Rent Is Too Damn High, is about the policy origins of the middle class housing affordability crisis in America.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

It started last year as a pressure campaign at sea, with the United States seizing tankers as part of what President Trump called a "total and complete blockade" of vessels carrying Venezuelan crude subject to US sanctions. It crescendoed on January 3, when US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, bringing him and his wife to New York on narcoterrorism charges.

Since Maduro's removal, confusion remains over whether—and to what extent—the US is controlling the country's oil sector. But one thing is clear: despite holding the world's largest oil reserves, Venezuela is producing at a fraction of its former levels, and its path to recovery is anything but certain.

A national tragedy has only added to the instability. In June, twin earthquakes claimed more than 5,000 lives. While the country's energy infrastructure did not sustain significant damage, the quakes exposed deep fault lines in the country's political leadership and served as a stark reminder of an already long-standing humanitarian crisis in the region.

So what's the state of the energy sector and energy investments in Venezuela? How has the global energy crisis changed the calculus for prospective energy developers? What role is the Trump administration playing in the sale of Venezuelan oil? And where is oil production headed?

Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with Luisa Palacios about the state of the Venezuelan energy sector, efforts around creating new policies to boost oil production, and the impact of the June earthquakes.

Luisa is an adjunct senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University, where she previously served as head of research. Before joining CGEP, Luisa was chairwoman of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, the US refining arm of Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Over the past five months, the Strait of Hormuz has been closed for extended stretches of time, disrupting roughly 10 to 15 million barrels of oil supply each day. It is the biggest energy supply shock in history, but global energy markets are defying historical expectations.

Despite lost production and heightened geopolitical instability, crude oil prices are far below the catastrophic levels many analysts predicted early on. But beneath the headline numbers, the broader energy system tells a far more complicated story. Refining margins have spiked to unprecedented levels, global coal consumption is pacing toward a new record high, and the ways energy moves around the world are changing in real time as the crisis continues to unfold.

So, why hasn't this massive disruption triggered a full-blown global economic crisis? What role are China's massive strategic stockpiles, shifting demand patterns, and the ongoing energy transition playing in dampening the shock? And what are the long-term security implications for global oil refining, shipping chokepoints, and future LNG infrastructure?

Today on the show, Jason Bordoff talks to Bloomberg opinion columnist Javier Blas about how the strait closure and Iran war have impacted global energy markets so far.

Prior to joining Bloomberg in 2015, Javier held a number of roles at the Financial Times, including Africa editor and commodities editor. He is also the co-author of The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth's Resources.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

As the demand for power surges across the US, the debate over how to build energy infrastructure has reached a fever pitch. And while both sides of the aisle broadly agree that the current permitting process is broken, turning that consensus into actual ​legislation remains a challenge. So how do we define permitting reform, what does meaningful progress actually look like, and where do we stand today?

Alan Armstrong is keenly focused on those questions. After spending his entire career in the energy industry, he was sworn into the US Senate in March, representing Oklahoma. (Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt appointed him after Markwayne Mullin resigned to become US secretary of Homeland Security. Per Oklahoma law, Armstrong cannot run for reelection.) Senator Armstrong spent 15 years as CEO of Williams Companies, one of the largest natural gas infrastructure firms in North America. He is also the former chair of the National Petroleum Council and a founding member of Natural Allies for a Clean Energy Future.

Last week, Jason Bordoff spoke with Senator Armstrong about his legislative focus: permitting reforms aimed at streamlining energy buildouts. They discussed a bill that the senator has sponsored, the American Energy and Mineral Infrastructure Act of 2026, as well as the broader wave of reform efforts drawing bipartisan attention. The senator reflected on his time at Williams and how that informed his view on permitting policy. They discussed the role of judicial review, the power dynamic between federal and state regulators, and how growing energy affordability concerns are adding new pressure to pass meaningful permitting reform.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Critical minerals sit at the intersection of energy technology, industrial competitiveness, and economic resilience. The issue has hit a fever pitch in the United States, driving the Trump administration to establish a $12 billion Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve and take other steps to support domestic mining projects. More broadly, G7 countries recently agreed to step up coordination to cut their countries' reliance on China for critical minerals.

All of these moves are targeted at breaking China's stronghold on the sector, which it built over decades as the US largely turned away from securing a critical mineral supply chain. And it's not just about supply dominance, China is also using its strengths in the sector as a geopolitical weapon.

Yet, questions remain over whether US investments to date, or international agreements, are stoking the level of private investment needed to compete with China. So what financial models could provide effective blueprints for quickly scaling mineral supply? Which countries are pursuing the most promising approaches? And looking beyond investments, what policy tools could help the US and its allies grow a resilient critical minerals supply chain?

Today on the show, Bill Loveless speaks to Tom Moerenhout and Tomasz Nadrowski about what it takes to build mineral supply chains as strategic infrastructure and how targeted financial instruments could lower risks for investors.

Tom Moerenhout leads the Critical Materials Initiative at the Center on Global Energy Policy and is a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. Recently, he and other scholars at the center contributed to a new World Economic Forum report called "Making Critical Minerals Bankable: Policy Tools to Unlock Investment."

Tomasz Nadrowski is the co-founder and portfolio manager at Amvest Terraden, where he invests in exploration, development and mining companies that are focused on strategic minerals. He has 25 years of mining sector investment experience. He is also the author of the recently published book Mineral War: China's Quest for Weapons of Mineral Destruction.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.