Democrats Grill Chris Wright on the Affordability Crisis Around the Iran War

Democrats used Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s visit to Capitol Hill on Wednesday as an opportunity to blast the Trump administration for the war in Iran and for contributing to rising energy costs around the nation.

Wright testified in front of House appropriators about the White House’s budget request for fiscal year 2027, which shifts money away from renewable energy, emissions regulations and climate change research and instead boosts spending on fossil fuels and critical minerals.

Democrats made the case that those cuts would only increase costs across the nation.

“American families … are struggling with a 40% increase in gas prices, over $1 a gallon on average, caused by the president’s reckless war of choice with Iran,” said Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the top Democrat on the energy appropriations subcommittee that held the hearing. “Instead of taking any meaningful steps to bring down the soaring cost of living caused by this administration’s policy, the president’s budget makes the problem worse.”

Wright largely deflected questions about rapidly rising energy costs, which this month saw their sharpest increase in several years.

He said he has “spoken with the president and the whole administration about Iran and the impacts of action against Iran,” and defended the United States’ involvement in the conflict.

“I hear your sort of smug dismissal of our concern for energy costs and energy reliability,” Wright told the subcommittee, calling the criticism from Democrats “entirely unjustified” and claiming there is “no interruption in flows of global oil and gas.”

The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which about 20% of the world’s gas and liquefied natural gas passes through. Trump administration officials contended Wednesday that gas prices will go down this summer and that the disruption from the war is only in the “short-term.”

Democrats also highlighted the administration’s proposal to disband the Weatherization Assistance Program, a federally funded, state-administered effort that helps low-income households save on energy costs by improving efficiency. Participating households save about $370 on average each year on energy bills, according to the department.

The White House did not refer to the program by name in its budget proposal, but proposed cuts to programs handled by the department’s energy efficiency office would hit weatherization assistance funds. The department disbanded that office last year and replaced it with an office focused on critical minerals work; the 2027 budget request looks to reduce remaining funding for programs that used to be housed under the energy efficiency office.

The weatherization program has survived previous attempted cuts by the Trump administration, but energy assistance advocates are concerned about its future.

“I guess this administration does not believe American families need that money,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House.

Democrats also questioned Wright about the Energy Department’s efforts to undo billions of dollars in funding for renewable energy projects.

The budget proposal comes on the heels of a string of moves by the administration to stall progress on renewable energy, including by instituting a higher standard of review for renewable energy permits and canceling billions of dollars in funding for thousands of energy projects across the country.

If approved, the budget proposal would further those efforts. The White House is looking to cancel more than $15 billion in funding appropriated through the Biden-era bipartisan infrastructure law for renewable energy development, carbon-capture technology and more. The administration’s budget request also zeroes out funding for the Energy Department’s solar energy office.

But the secretary downplayed some of the previous cuts and suggested that the proposed cuts will not be set in stone if they pass.

He said the department will “continue to dialogue and work on” solar funding.

Wright added that the department has reinstated or decided to continue funding for the “majority” of the projects that it started reviewing last year over allegations of “wasteful” spending.

“We’ve had a number of projects where we’ve made decisions, we’ve been clarified and educated and thought, ‘You know, you’re right. I think we misunderstood what you were doing there, or we thought it wasn’t viable because we didn’t see that connecting step that makes the math work,” Wright said. “So absolutely, we are willing and ready to engage those.”

Wright suggested the department will continue to consider reinstating funding on a case-by-case basis, including when it comes to the $15 billion the White House wants to rescind.

A federal judge ruled this year that in one round of energy funding cancellations in October, the department violated equal protection laws by primarily targeting projects based in Democratic-leaning states. Federal government lawyers said in filings in that case that the Energy Department took into account whether a state leaned red or blue when making decisions on funding rescissions.

But Wright on Wednesday denied that his staff considered political leanings when reviewing those awards last year.

“All of the 2,270 projects we evaluated were not evaluated in any way, shape or form based on where they were,” Wright told the subcommittee members, later adding that funding decisions were made “on merits.”

Democrats, however, pushed Wright over that issue multiple times.

“There’s a discrepancy between what you are saying and what the court determined about those projects,” DeLauro told Wright.

One area where Wright did acknowledge political risk? Artificial Intelligence.

The White House’s budget proposal includes several boosts for artificial intelligence, including more than $1 billion in the Energy Department’s bucket to fund AI supercomputers at two national laboratories.

“The country as a whole is going very negative on AI,” Wright said. “It will be a loss to America if we stop this development … but if we don’t market it better, we don’t communicate it better, we’re at risk. We need to change the public perception of AI.”