Connect with us

Politics

RFK Jr.’s past support for higher gas prices and electric cars surfaces, old interviews show

Published

on

RFK Jr.’s past support for higher gas prices and electric cars surfaces, old interviews show

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. previously expressed support for higher gas prices for consumers, which he argued would force a market shift toward electric vehicles. 

Kennedy made the argument in a number of media appearances, as well as at least one speech, going back to 2003, claiming that ending subsidies to oil companies and forcing them to cover certain costs related to oil production, would lead to gasoline costing its “true price” of up to $22 per gallon.

Advertisement

“The No. 1 thing we need to do as a nation, more important than the moonshot, more important than anything else, is to get off of foreign oil, whatever it takes, and I think if we had true markets, we’d spend $5.2 trillion a year on subsidies to the carbon industry, and that doesn’t include the $8 trillion that we spent on wars protecting essentially oil pipelines,” Kennedy said during an interview last year.

INSIDERS PREDICT THIS POSSIBLE TRUMP VP PICK POSES ‘EXISTENTIAL THREAT’ TO KEY AREA OF BIDEN SUPPORT 

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. expressed support for higher gas prices in order to force a market shift toward electric vehicles. (Getty Images)

“If those companies were forced to internalize those costs, gasoline would cost its true price, which is about $22 a gallon, and we would be figuring out using American initiative and our industrial genius other ways to get around,” he added.

Kennedy made a similar argument during a 2016 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, telling the audience that if oil companies were “forced” to internalize costs related to the effects the industry had on nearby populations, such as healthcare costs, crop damage, acid rain damage and other pollution costs, it would, in turn, be reflected in the price of oil.

Advertisement

“We’d be paying $12 at the pump, and we’d be sending the correct signals to the marketplace. And the market would be saying, we need an alternative to a gasoline car because every American would say, ‘Well, it costs about 0.30 cents a mile to drive an electric car, and it costs about $4 a mile once you get to buy a gasoline car,’” he said.

“We’d very quickly transition, and you would incentivize all these people out there who are adding efficiencies to lithium-ion batteries and looking at different battery systems.”

He went on to argue that the federal government should be creating an “ecosystem” that incentivizes the most efficient technologies available and “punishes the inefficiencies of oil and coal.”

NIKKI HALEY SILENT ON TRUMP’S NYC CONVICTION AS OTHER PROMINENT REPUBLICANS SPRING TO HIS DEFENSE

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at the Libertarian National Convention on May 24, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Kennedy similarly wrote in a 2014 article for the Huffington Post that “if the oil industry had to pay the true costs of bringing its product to market, gas prices would be upwards of $12 per gallon at the pump.”

“Most Americans would be running to buy electric cars,” he wrote. “With low-cost disruptive technologies like cheap, fast and efficient electric vehicles, and solar and wind technologies poised to displace Big Oil, the industry is using its hold on the Republican Party to permanently embed itself in our economy while subverting science, American democracy, free market capitalism and our sacred belief in an ethical God.”

Kennedy appeared on CNN in 2003 and also argued then that removing subsidies for oil companies to a point where consumers would pay more at the pump would force a market reaction.

“There’s no stronger advocate for free market capitalism than myself, and I don’t think the government should be telling people what to buy or Detroit what to build. The problem is the free market has been distorted in this case,” he said. “We give $6 to $15 billion a year in direct subsidies to the oil industry. That allows big oil to artificially lower the price of gasoline to about $1.89 a gallon, as it is today.” 

TRUMP GUILTY VERDICT REVEALS SPLIT AMONG FORMER GOP PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY OPPONENTS

Advertisement

Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks to attendees during a campaign rally at Brazos Hall on May 13, 2024 in Austin, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

“If we were paying the true price of gasoline, we’d be paying what they pay in Europe and elsewhere, $5 a gallon. Americans then would be screaming at Detroit to give us cars that get 40 miles per gallon. And Detroit would be giving us SUVs that get 40 miles per gallon.”

Kennedy was asked why automakers weren’t, at the time, already producing more electric vehicles if they could make billions by enticing consumers unhappy over gas prices, but Kennedy argued there was no demand for them at the time because the price of gas, then just under $2 on average, was “still relatively low.”

“If we go up over $2.50 a gallon, they will be making within, two or three years, 40 mile per gallon SUVs, and we’ll be buying them. And the problem is that we have a distortion in the free market that’s caused by these giant subsidies to the oil industry,” he said.

Advertisement

Kennedy’s campaign told Fox News Digital that “Mr. Kennedy believes the transition to clean energy must never come at the expense of those who can least afford it.”

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending