1. The purpose of an editorial/commentary is to explain, persuade, warn, criticize, entertain, praise or answer. What do you think is the purpose of former U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette’s commentary? Explain your answer.

2. What is the main idea of this article?

3. What is your reaction to each of the following points made in the article?

1. Under the Biden administration’s policies, Putin’s pipeline has been allowed to move forward without serious consequence, but a well-studied, economically important pipeline (Keystone) that would greatly benefit the people of the United States and Canada cannot.
2. The Biden administration is seemingly more worried about upsetting diplomatic relationships in Berlin and Paris versus upholding their commitment to “build back better,” protecting good-paying American jobs, and standing up to Russian aggression.
3. …[Biden’s] decisions only serve to increase America’s reliance on energy from OPEC nations and Russia, which is produced with lower environmental standards and increases our vulnerability to their geopolitical manipulations.
4. It’s time we ask this administration why the interests of Russia, France and Germany have taken precedence over U.S. jobs and America’s national security. And will their deference to Putin’s oligarchs and Middle East monarchies continue as they consider calls by environmental activists to cancel additional American energy infrastructure?
5. This administration is allowing American energy leadership to diminish by the day. Will the new president change his current course, or will we continue to see “America first” replaced with “America last”?