Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s latest in a string of Capitol Hill appearances this year may have been his most explosive yet, with Democrats focusing on high gasoline and electricity prices.
Wright appeared before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to defend the department’s fiscal 2027 budget request, but Democrats quickly shifted their focus to a series of Department of Energy actions they argue have been overtly partisan and damaging to clean energy development.
“You have a lot of explaining to do before this committee today,” said ranking member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). “The damage that you and the broader administration have already inflicted on our national energy innovation enterprise is frankly staggering.”
Sharp criticism from Democrats is nothing new for Wright, but Wednesday’s hearing was among his most combative. The Energy secretary repeatedly argued that Democratic energy policies bear primary responsibility for the higher prices Americans are paying for gasoline and electricity.
“Democratic policies that drive up electricity prices, gasoline prices, diesel prices — they have been permanent, and they are a larger force, a larger factor in energy prices today than the Iran conflict,” Wright said. “And this conflict will pass.”
The exchanges frequently devolved into shouting matches, with several lawmakers and Wright talking over one another and, at times, using expletives during the hearing.
Still, the hearing also featured new discussion of the Strait of Hormuz, the department’s nuclear energy ambitions and its controversial report on climate change.
Iran war
Wright provided additional context for comments he made a day earlier about increased oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while also fielding questions about President Donald Trump’s comments on inflation.
Speaking at an Atlantic Council event Tuesday, Wright said traffic through the critical oil chokepoint was “rising very meaningfully,” comments that helped send oil prices down several percentage points Wednesday.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) asked Wright to provide “a little bit more detail, at least more than the word ‘meaningfully.'”
“We are not talking openly about it, but this is using the U.S. military to increase flows of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, and things are going well,” Wright said, later adding that the government has data showing a significant increase in the number of ships transiting the waterway.
Trump later appeared to confirm the operation, posting on Truth Social that the military had executed a secret mission to move more than 100 million barrels of oil through the strait.
While the long-term outlook for the chokepoint remains uncertain, Wright expressed confidence that energy flows would eventually normalize.
“I shouldn’t be in the business of making energy price predictions or predictions of any prices in the future, but the Strait of Hormuz will reopen and energy flows will grow and prices will come down,” he said.
Wright was also asked about Trump’s comments to reporters that he “loved” inflation because oil prices would fall once the conflict ended.
“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why?” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now … you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil.”
Wright responded, “I think he talks to all different audiences and he talks in all different styles, but I don’t have any serious objection to what he said.”
Canceled grants
The sharpest clashes centered on familiar disputes over clean energy and the department’s cancellation of grants — issues that have dominated Wright’s previous appearances before Congress but remain no closer to resolution.
That focus was on DOE’s review of more than 2,200 funding awards, launched last year to eliminate what the administration viewed as wasteful Biden-era spending. That review is now complete.
Many of the canceled awards, most of them in Democratic-led states, remain in limbo. A federal judge sided with clean energy groups that argued the Trump administration acted punitively in canceling the grants. During the proceedings, government lawyers acknowledged that the location of award recipients influenced which projects were selected for review.
Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) argued the ruling made clear the cancellations were partisan and unconstitutional and asked Wright when the funding would be restored.
Wright maintained the decisions were not politically motivated.
“What you’re referring to is a choice of announcements of some of the awards, not made by our department,” Wright said. “No decisions were made on politics. I keep hearing that charge. It’s bullshit. We’re going to say it a million times.”
Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) later asked Wright to identify the DOE staff members responsible for the cancellations, but he declined.
“You are just obfuscating the situation for your own political benefit,” Ross said. “Clean energy is an entire sector that has benefited this country, and your administration has declared war on it.”
Nuclear deadline
As DOE races to meet an ambitious goal of having three advanced microreactors reach criticality by July 4, Wright suggested there is at least some uncertainty about whether the agency will hit its target.
Ten companies — including Oklo and Last Energy — are competing to meet the deadline established by one of Trump’s nuclear executive orders. Last week, DOE announced that a microreactor developed by Antares Nuclear reached criticality.
Talking about the program, Wright said two other reactors would “probably” reach criticality before July 4.
“We’ll probably have two more of those before July 4, so nuclear is going to move forward,” he said.
Other agency officials, including Idaho National Laboratory Director John Wagner, have said they are “optimistic” the department will meet the goal.
An Office of Nuclear Energy spokesperson said the agency “anticipates other companies will reach this milestone by July 4, reflecting continued progress and momentum within the program.”
Climate report
Democrats also pressed Wright over a department-commissioned climate study arguing that “climate change is a challenge — not a catastrophe.”
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) questioned why the report was commissioned and released without undergoing peer review, a standard step for most scientific research.
“The first line of defense is, don’t even discuss it, don’t use it for policy until it has passed independent scientific peer review,” Foster said.
Democrats also asked whether EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin was consulted during the study’s development and whether its conclusions could be used to justify the administration’s effort to repeal the endangerment finding.
Wright defended the report, saying officials across the government were kept informed during its development and that it would eventually undergo peer review.
“It’s five outstanding scientists, we’d love to submit it for peer review, and we’ll eventually do just that,” Wright said.
