Remarks transcript, Jul 24, 2026 (Donald Trump)

putting these up?

——we have—I can speak for Doug, and then I'm going to let Doug speak, because he knows the subject.

And is——

I really do——

nuclear energy better?

——know that subject well.

We have not approved anything having to do with windmills. They are horrible. They are unsightly. They ruin housing values of people.

If you are looking at a windmill or hearing a windmill—because they're noisy. They kill all the birds. They kill all the eagles. You know, if you shoot an eagle, you go to jail for 2 years. If you kill an eagle with a windmill, you don't go to jail. And they have hundreds of them laying on the ground. You know, it's terrible. And they're very expensive energy.

And they're all made in China, but China has very few windmills. You know, they have—they're made in China, but China doesn't use them, for the most part. You—China actually uses coal, oil, and gas.

They use nuclear, by the way. They're getting very big in nuclear, I want to tell you—this little group.

But they don't use wind. Wind is inconsistent. It's unattractive. It's very expensive. It's probably the most expensive form of energy. So I've been talking about it.

We, essentially, unless it's for—unless there's a trick reason, we will have, hopefully, no wind farms approved. We're doing more than anybody ever in history, having to do with energy, but I've restricted wind farms—windmills.

Take a look at Palm Springs, California, where they have a wind farm as you enter beautiful Palm Springs, California. It looks like a junkyard. You have old ones, rotted ones. They're falling down all over the place.

They don't want to bury it because they say the fiber that the blades are made out of should not go in the ground because it's going to poison the ground. Now, I don't know if that's true or not. But if it's not going to go in the ground, what do you do with it? Put it up in the air?

Yes, because that's——

So, good. I see you're not a fan of windmills. You're doing——

No, I'm not a fan of windmills, Mr. President.

Then you happen to a very smart——

I'm very passionate about this.

Doug, do you want to speak about that for a second?

No, but I would say—yes, President Trump has wisely understood that wind was unreliable, intermittent, dependent on the weather. Only existed particularly offshore because of massive subsidies.

So not only was it expensive to generate electricity on the grid, it was also expensive for taxpayers because of subsidies.

And so, again, President Trump shifting the policy towards energy dominance, which is reliable, affordable, 7-by-24 energy that's not dependent on the weather, and that includes nuclear, includes hydro, includes geothermal, includes oil and gas, includes beautiful coal.

And again, China, 60 percent of their electricity is coming from coal. Coal was the number-one electric producer in the world 125 years ago, and it was for the last 125 years in a row, and it will be again this year. A hundred and twenty is quite a streak if you're an athletic team—that they've won 126 years in a row. But President Trump——

But we were restricted from using it.

Yes.

Every coal mine was going to be closed down within the next year if we didn't come along—we didn't win the election. And it's—I call it "clean, beautiful coal," because it is. What they do today with coal is amazing, but it is the most powerful.

And, with that, go ahead, Doug.

Well, as I say with—under President Trump's leadership and then working together as a team across Government with Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin, Energy Dominance Council, we've kept open 35 gigawatts of coal this last year.

And if that 35 gigawatts was not up this past winter during the cold streak in Storm Fern, we would have seen brownouts, blackouts, and literally people dying in America during that cold weather.

So, again, President Trump's—the elections matter. When he came in, he turned the direction back towards reliable, affordable energy.

Nuclear is a key part of that with these amazing entrepreneurs, and I just would add to this, up here: People need to understand the four guys who are standing up here did not get a Government grant. This is private sector. President Trump unleashed capital, going back in—billions of dollars of capital going back into the nuclear industry. President Trump understands innovation is the source of American greatness. You get rid of the regulation, you support entrepreneurs, the capital flows, America wins.

And, Mr. Secretary, the—you know, the starting for this nuclear, you know, dominance, what does that look like for the American people out there? Like, what are those first steps that we can see in these coming months and years?

Well, I should say, I'll go on—and you can see it right now because when you take a look across the whole world, President Trump's policies, whether it's, you know, Venezuela, whether it's Alaska, whether it's reinstating export for—you know, 18 months ago, we had a ban on LNG exports from our country. Now we're the world's largest exporter of LNG.

President Trump's policy was: Let's sell energy to our friends and allies, keep it affordable at home so our friends and allies can stop buying from our adversaries.

Russia was selling virtually all of the natural gas into Western Europe. Two-thirds of that gas has been displaced by America. America has turned those into our customers, supporting our allies. And with Venezuela, as President Trump said, that flowing to our refineries on the south coast, that's lowering gas prices for America.

Unleashing Alaska, which the previous administration sanctioned more than Iran, that's going to, again, help provide low-cost energy for Americans.

So, today, we have the lowest priced, most secure energy of any country in the world. That's going to change the course of this country for decades to come.

The Justice Department last night withdrew those subpoenas to the New York Times journalists who reported on Air Force One. Do you support these type of subpoenas to journalists? Or are you going to encourage——

Well, I——

Are you going to encourage the administration to stop these subpoenas?

Yes, we're not after journalists. We're after leakers. We're after people that are cowards, people that are unpatriotic, people that are treasonous, in many cases. And the way you find them is through the journalists, when the journalists probably know they shouldn't write, they shouldn't be giving information out like that particular information or others.

We had a lot of—look at the Supreme Court, where they leaked the opinion of Roe v. Wade early. That person should be found, and the way you find them is to tell the journalist—if it's something having to do with national security, you tell the journalist, "Who is it?" And we have a long way to go with that case.

So you think it's appropriate to subpoena family members of journalists to find out information?

What—say it again? If——

There was subpoenas to family members of the journalists too.

I don't know what's appropriate, what's not. We do it legally. Barack Hussein Obama did it all the time. He went after journalists, and nobody said anything about it.

He went after journalists. They said: "Who was the leaker? Who was the leaker? And if you don't give us the leaker, you go into jail." You know that. But when, you know, Obama does it, it's okay. When I do it, it's not.

In many cases, that's the only way you're going to find out who a leaker is, and it has to do with national security.

It's amazing. He did it many times, and nobody said anything about it. But when a Republican does it, when, in particular, Trump does it, everybody makes a big deal.

Now, the way you find out is, you say to the journalists—if it's national security. I would say—I really put it down to national security. Not all—in all cases. But when you have somebody doing a national security leak or a leak of great importance, and you have somebody inside the walls of, let's say, the White House leaking, I think that's a national concern—security concern. I think it's absolutely fine.

And again, I'm not knocking Obama for doing it. I'm knocking the press for not even wanting to cover it.

But Obama did that often. Other Presidents have done it also. They go to the journalist or the reporter, they say: "National security. Who gave you this information?" I'm okay with that.

Did you authorize for Secretary Wright to sign the Saudi nuclear deal? If not, why did he sign it?

Well, we didn't talk about it, but it was always understood, and Chris knew and Saudi Arabia knew, that if they didn't join the Abraham Accords, the deal is not—I'm not going to do the deal.

So why did he sign it?

Senator—Senator John——

Because I—they understood that in order—you know, it's subject to Congress and everything else—in order for that deal to go through, they had to sign into the Abraham Accords, and they've had great success. The Abraham Accords have been very successful. But in order to do that, we wanted them—we want them in. We think it's very good.

We think the Abraham Accords bring peace in the Middle East, and now there's no longer an Iran factor. There's no longer Iran to worry about because they've been reduced in terms of their capability and power by many fold.

Thank you. Senator John Thune has suggested that if the White House thinks that there are votes to pass the SAVE America Act, you should be picking up the phone.

Who are you with?

I'm with the Washington Examiner, sir.

What—could you be doing more to help that legislation pass?

Well, I do more. I got three Congressmen, maybe four, to settle—you know, to send it to the Senate. We got the vote, as you know, in Congress. I got a call from Mike Johnson, who's fantastic. He's a fantastic Speaker, one of the best I've ever seen, and I think he's going to go down as one of the best.

He called. He said: "We have problems with three or four people. Could you call them?" I called them. Every one of them, after I called them, voted, and we got it passed up to the Senate.

And I'd certainly be willing. I mean, he's got four or five people that are very difficult. A couple of them I put out of office. I understand how it feels. I mean, they're doing the wrong thing.

Look, who cannot approve voter ID? Who cannot approve proof of citizenship? Who cannot approve funding military when you're winning a war? And what are you supposed to do? Stop fighting?

We're winning a war by a lot. We're talking to them right now. They're willing to do things that they would have never done. Other Presidents should have done this a long time ago. I say 47, but now it's actually 50 years. We've been saying 47 for 3 years, so it's 50 years.

For 50 years, they should have done it. But who wouldn't approve voter ID? And that's photo ID. Who wouldn't approve proof of citizenship? And the Democrats don't want it because they cheat. But no Republican should put us in a position where they don't approve something like that.

Yes, please.

And then earlier today you reposted Laura Loomer's interview with President Zelenskyy. What do you make of growing MAGA support for the war in Iran—or war in Ukraine? Sorry.

Well, I think they support what I support. You know, we just had a complete win in Arizona. The young gentleman, who's Harry Enten, I believe his name is—the pollster—said: "Trump is a hundred-percent favorable. He gets—everybody he endorses wins," which is pretty much true. Everyone I endorse, just about, wins.

So there seems to be a natural bond between me and MAGA. But I'm the one that created MAGA, and I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else. You know, MAGA knows what MAGA wants, and MAGA is very happy. They want to see this done, and they're not going to be happy if it's not done. "Make America Great Again." It's all about making—you know, we started that a long time ago.

But the concept of not approving voter ID or not approving proof of citizenship—and I won't even get into the ballot thing because, you know, we'll hold that maybe for another time. I think the two are 97-, 98-percent issues. I think the ballots are 75-percent issue, but even at 75, they should do the ballots. The ballots are, in many ways, more important than even the first two, but they're a little more controversial because some people don't want to go and vote. But most great Americans want to go and vote.

The corrupt ballot stuff that—you saw that with the recent election in Los Angeles, the mayor's election, where the young guy—I don't know him. He came to the office recently after he lost. And they find all these ballots all of a sudden. Now that they came down from heaven, hundreds of thousands of ballots. Isn't it wonderful? He had no chance of losing, you know. Spencer Pratt, he had no chance. He was going to be in second place or first place.

But—and I saw it happen. I said, "Oh, he's not going to win." He had to beat somebody. He was way up on a person that nobody ever heard of, a young woman who nobody ever heard of. She cried that night that she lost. But all of a sudden, time went by, time, and the election is long over. And I heard a report that Spencer Pratt is not doing that well. I said, "Watch, he's going to lose," and he lost.

It's crooked. We have crooked elections in some places.

President Trump, today it was announced LeBron James has decided that he wants his next team to be the 76ers. Where do you stand on LeBron versus Michael Jordan as the best ever?

Well, Michael Jordan is a guy that's a friend of mine. I play golf with him. He's a really good guy.

And I think LeBron is—maybe he's a racist, but maybe he doesn't like Trump. I don't know. But I only like people that like me. So I would say Michael Jordan all the way.

And another sports—another sports question. When Tiger Woods was about to get arrested, he called you.

Yes.

Now we know that when Bryson DeChambeau was having a dispute with a rules official this week, he wanted to call you. You got involved with a red card for the U.S. men's soccer team. Is there a precedent for somebody with your job becoming a fixer for the world's best athletes?

Well, it's not a fixer. You mean being a judge. Like, you know, I thought the Bryson call was a tough call. You know, I saw him walking around. I see a lot of people. They're walking around looking for their ball in weeds. Okay? But I've been watching that, so, you know, I thought it was a tough call against him.

I thought the red card was a very tough call, and it worked out brilliantly. Look, supposing that they didn't let him play and we lost, everyone would have been angry, right? The way it was that they lost with their best player. Now everyone is happy, including Belgium. Of course, they lost the next game, so they might—they're not that happy either. But it worked out great. Gianni did a good job in making that call. All I did: I asked for a review. I thought that call was not a good call.

Mr. President, your administration announced new tariffs today, and you did a post earlier also about a probe against the EU. Are you confident that the new tariffs and any tariffs that may come from this probe will withstand legal scrutiny?

Well, these tariffs have been up for a long time. They've been approved for years. Thousands of cases, they've been approved. Of course, with me, you know, it's different. I'm different. I go up, I don't get treated fairly, but I'm—I've lived with it. And here we are in the Oval Office. I guess I somehow figured it out.

But no, we put the tariffs on. They're very standard tariffs. The other way was easier. I thought the decision by the Supreme Court was not a good one. But we have many forms of tariffs, and all we did is go to B. You know, follow the line B. Now, B is something that's been used many, many times for years and very standard. And we've used that, and we're taking in billions of dollars.

And because of tariffs, largely—I think the election, November 5—but largely because of tariffs, we have $19.2 trillion being invested in our country. And without tariffs, we wouldn't—you know, we'd be in big trouble.

Think of it. So the Sleepy Joe Biden administration has less than a trillion being invested, much less, for 4 years. We have $19.2 trillion for 1 year. There's never been anything like it in history. That's because of tariffs.

So the Supreme Court said: "Please do it a different way. You have other ways to do it." And we did that.

You told Axios——

Child—child labor was one of the things that USTR cited as a reason——

Well, it seems to be that that's what they decided. They go all over the world and they look and they examine and they see, they see. And child labor was one of the things that—one of the reasons, and they had a big problem with that.

Yes.

You told Axios that you were considering a, quote, "massive attack" on Iran. What is the tipping point for you to make the decision to make the attack?

Well, I can't tell you that.

Right now we're talking to them, so, you know, maybe there won't be a tipping point, and maybe there will.

We're ready to go. Look, we're locked and loaded. We're ready to go. But we're talking to them, so maybe there will be and maybe there won't be a tipping point.

But at what point with Iran do you think they're going to cry uncle and come to the—actually come to the table?

Well, you know, maybe they will cry uncle, or maybe they'll just give up, or maybe they'll just go into a cave and hide. You know, they have caves very deep in the ground, and they can hide. It's—they get shaken up pretty good, but they can hide.

But we've taken out their first level of leadership. We've then taken out their second level of leadership. We've taken out some of the third level, and we're negotiating with the rest. And we'll see how it all works.

And right now we are talking to them seriously. But you know, I've talked to them before, and they don't seem to be able to get there. Maybe now they will.

But—you know, look, if I thought they were anywhere near getting a nuclear weapon—if I didn't come, if I wasn't elected, Israel would, in my opinion, not be around anymore. They would have been hit by a nuclear weapon. And that includes right at the beginning with Barack Hussein Obama's nuclear deal that was so bad, with Iran. That was a road to a nuclear weapon.

And maybe even more so the B–2 bombers. If that plane right there—that plane, that beautiful plane.

The wing carries the largest bombs in the world. If that bomb didn't go over there—17-hour flight. And it hit—every one of those bombs hit their target, and the target was an air shaft at 2 o'clock in the morning. It's hard to believe, right? Going at very tremendous speeds. Every one of them hit and blew it to hell.

If that didn't happen, they would have had a nuclear weapon, and there would be no Israel. If I wasn't here, if I wasn't President, there would be no Israel, and there probably would be no Middle East. And you saw that when they shockingly started shooting at everybody all over the Middle East. If they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used that. There might not be a Middle East as we know it today. But there definitely—in my opinion, there would not have been an Israel.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you.