Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.

According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.

“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.

The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”

The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”

White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.

However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.

Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”

Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”

The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.

These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.

Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.

Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:

“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”

In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”

The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.

US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.

Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.

Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.

However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.

“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.

The US Department of War (Pentagon) is preparing a new nuclear strategy that places special emphasis on the potential deployment of tactical and shorter-range nuclear weapons.

According to a report by NBC citing five informed sources familiar with the matter, the emerging strategy challenges a nuclear approach that has been regarded as unshakeable for decades.

The report asserted that the proposals presented by the department would not exclude any course of action for the US President. Instead, they aim to “expand decision space and thereby strengthen deterrence” by offering him realistic and credible options.

A Pentagon source said in a statement: “We believe we need credible options regarding the use of nuclear weapons.”

Work on the new strategy is being led by Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The process is reportedly being conducted as part of the routine reviews typically carried out under each new presidential administration.

Colby, who has long advocated for an increased role for tactical weapons, contends that US adversaries believe Washington might actually use long-range nuclear weapons to destroy enemy nuclear forces, as envisaged in the current strategy.

The strategy proposed by Colby has raised concerns among some US lawmakers. Critics argue that this approach could make the use of nuclear weapons appear less threatening or lead to a decline in military readiness levels under specific scenarios.

Furthermore, some circles assess that the operational readiness of the US Armed Forces could be adversely affected as the focus of military training shifts toward the new strategy, which involves the use of shorter-range weapons.

Those expressing this view claim that in a potential catastrophic scenario, the US military would be less prepared for the process due to a lack of sufficient expertise in the use of nuclear weapons.

A US Congressional source, in an assessment provided to NBC, said: “It is hard to imagine another study that so directly contradicts the position stated by President Donald Trump that we need to make our nuclear deterrence system great again. He clearly wants to have more capabilities, not fewer. This study is a complete fiasco.”

Sources speaking to the network reported that Colby will present the work he is leading during an off-the-record military event in Nebraska, scheduled to take place during a visit to US Strategic Command, which oversees US nuclear forces.

The nuclear strategy of the US was last updated in 2024.

According to research from February 2026 by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the US Department of War holds a stockpile of approximately 3,700 nuclear warheads designed for delivery by ballistic missiles and strategic bombers.

Jointly, Russia and the US control approximately 90% of the world’s total nuclear weapons stockpile. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to consist of more than 4,300 warheads.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman sparked widespread debate after describing the company’s ChatGPT Work application as an agent capable of substituting for parenting functions.

Sarcastic comments posted in response to his Friday upload on X received more likes than the original post itself.

“Replacing real human connections with AI is the absolute worst use case for it,” read one critique aimed at Altman.

Conversely, artificial intelligence executives are targeting the budgets of “busy parents”, and certain use cases for AI in family management are gaining more traction than others.

In a recent article, The New Yorker magazine examined numerous ways in which AI is attempting to monetize relief from the “mental load of domestic responsibilities.”

The targeting of women and mothers is based on the following rationale: “Women use AI less than men do and expend more mental effort on household chores. An AI-based ‘family assistant’ promises to bridge both of these gaps.”

AI-powered family support applications include Ollie, Cozi (whose motto is: “Family life. Simplified”), Ava (whose motto is: “Fewer forgotten birthdays, more magic”), and Maple (whose motto is: “The operating system for modern families”).

By extracting data from emails and calendars, these applications can send text messages to family members regarding key daily events, remember birthdays, manage shared lists, and flag registration dates and bill payment deadlines.

Bill Lennon, founder of Ollie, states that the application assumes part of the administrative burden of household tasks, thereby “giving families more time for what matters.”

Meanwhile, AI-enhanced smart calendars such as Skylight and Cozyla create shared visuals so all family members can track their tasks, functioning simultaneously as reward trackers and photo albums.

Allison Stern, founder of a venture capital firm that views mothers as consumers, recently wrote in Fortune magazine that mothers “need outcomes, not interfaces.”

Asserting that “everything starts with the mother,” Stern said: “Mothers account for 85% of household spending in the US and control roughly $2.4 trillion in annual consumer expenditures.”

A recent market analysis regarding the use of AI in childcare and parenting projected that the sector will reach a value of approximately $42 billion by 2035.