David Ibsen

Executive Director @ForFreeMarkets, Founder and ED @FightExtremism, former @StateDept @USUN. RTs not endorsements.

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

AI requires compute, and compute requires data centers.

As this article from @dcfrontier illustrates, regulatory decisions increasingly determine where that infrastructure gets built—and which communities benefit from the investment, jobs, and tax revenue.

Economic opportunities don't disappear. They move elsewhere.

https://t.co/rvq950yNpc

[National Taxpayers Union @NTU]

In the face of ongoing disruptions in energy supplies, a coalition encourages @POTUS to announce an extension of your Jones Act waiver.

@AmerComm @AFPhq @aea @ForFreeMarkets @taxreformer @CFEconomy @CFandP @CTR4Transport
@ceidotorg @ConsumerChoiceC @exiledpolicy @VanceGinn @IWF @Pinpoint_Policy @RioGrandeFndn
@SBECouncil @JoinYoungVoices

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

@fsudwheeler at @JmsMadisonInst makes an important distinction: Banks are private businesses and should make decisions based on legitimate financial risks, not anticipated political preferences of federal examiners.

Regulators should assess banks' financial soundness, not the political popularity of their customers!

[James Madison Institute @JmsMadisonInst]

"Congress can establish a clear boundary for federal regulators and then leave banks to make their own business decisions within the law."

Fantastic new piece by @fsudwheeler in @FL_Daily encouraging the US Senate to keep federal banking supervision focused on financial risk, not political judgment: https://t.co/aVUPeY6ywg

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

5/5 None of this means AI should be exempt from oversight. But creating entirely new regulatory frameworks before we fully understand the technology, its risks, and the adequacy of existing protections may do more harm than good.

We should understand what needs regulating before deciding how to regulate it.

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

1/5 In exploring how best to regulate AI, this @ColumbiaMag article actually highlights several good reasons for regulatory restraint. First, we still don't fully understand AI's risks and potential impacts.

[Columbia Magazine @columbiamag]

Why @Columbia researchers say we can govern AI even as we’re still learning how it works. https://t.co/qp4WSF26EU

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

4/5 Fourth, premature regulation would entrench today's dominant AI companies. Large firms can absorb compliance costs that smaller competitors cannot, potentially limiting innovation and competition.

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

Debanking didn't start on Wall Street. It started in Washington.

Good discussion with @RealEJAntoni and the great Drew Steele on @FLVoiceNews.

[Florida’s Voice @FLVoiceNews]

🚨WHO'S REALLY TO BLAME FOR DEBANKING?: Chief Economist at the @Heritage Foundation reveals how the practice of DEBANKING came from Washington regulators

@RealEJAntoni: "[Congress needs] to formally BAN this kind of nonsense on the part of the regulatory state!"

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

China has built more high-voltage transmission in the past 15 years than the entirety of U.S. history. Meanwhile, America is still waiting years – sometimes decades – for federal permits to build the same infrastructure.

🎯Yellen, Kudlow and co. got it right.

[Alec Stapp @AlecStapp]

NEWS: 19 FORMER ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY LEADERS ENDORSE THE BIPARTISAN PERMITTING REFORM BILL

Today, a group of former Cabinet members and White House principals across seven Democratic and Republican administrations sent a letter calling on Congress to pass BAAJA. Here are the signatories:

Janet YELLEN, Michael R. POMPEO, Steven T. MNUCHIN, Leon E. PANETTA, Timothy F. GEITHNER, Henry M. PAULSON, Jr., Robert E. RUBIN, Stephen MIRAN, Jared BERNSTEIN, Tyler GOODSPEED, Jason FURMAN, Glenn HUBBARD, Laura D’Andrea TYSON, Michael J. BOSKIN, Jeffrey ZIENTS, Jake SULLIVAN, Brian DEESE, Larry KUDLOW, Allan B. HUBBARD

Key highlights from the letter:

1. “We are not building infrastructure fast enough to remain globally competitive… The median time for a new power plant to move from an interconnection request to commercial operation has more than doubled, from less than two years for projects built between 2000 and 2007 to more than four years for projects built between 2018 and 2024.

2. China has built more high-voltage transmission in the last fifteen years than the U.S. has built in all of its history... In 2024, China accounted for 31.5% of global knowledge- and technology-intensive manufacturing value added, compared with 20.7% for the United States.

3. Federally funded or permitted projects require NEPA review, but private projects often do not, creating a threat of failure precisely where the government is trying to be proactive, strategic, and engaged.

4. A project that spends years awaiting approval must continue carrying development and financing costs while remaining exposed to rising input costs. The IEA reports that prices for utility-scale transformers increased 26% in 2024, while lead times for some transformers have stretched as long as six years.

5. Mining projects also face tremendous uncertainty: a 2026 study by researchers at the Colorado School of Mines found that permitting for modern mining projects takes an average of 5.5 years, rising to 8.9 years for contested projects. The U.S. currently has the second-longest mine development timeline in the world.

6. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is the most significant bipartisan legislative effort that Congress has undertaken in decades to tackle these challenges.

7. BAAJA addresses key constraints stifling American industry by requiring interregional transmission planning, strengthening the federal backstop for nationally significant transmission lines, and creating a faster, more predictable process for connecting new generation to the grid.

8. BAAJA also makes permits more durable by imposing tighter timelines for litigation and limiting frivolous lawsuits that can halt projects indefinitely, while preserving community input and judicial review of substantive agency decisions.”

The letter was organized by @arnabdatta321 on behalf of @IFP and covered exclusively by the WSJ this morning.

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

@JamesMorrone highlights the real costs of permitting delays, including a power line that waited 16 years for approval!

Environmental review should address legitimate concerns, not become a tool for indefinite obstruction. Once those concerns are addressed and legal requirements met, projects—whether wind, gas, or nuclear—need certainty to move forward.

Unnecessary delays discourage investment and ultimately raise energy costs for American consumers.

[James Morrone @James_morrone]

Permitting is broken, and it costs us jobs and higher electricity bills.

Take the TransWest Express power line. Applied in 2007. Approved in 2023.

It’s a power line, not a pyramid. My op-ed on why we need BAAJA's reforms now: https://t.co/iGt7tunI8B

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

An important bipartisan argument for permitting reform from @JasonBordoff: The same obstacles that delay oil and gas projects also impede nuclear, renewables, and transmission.

Environmental review was initially intended to identify and assess environmental impacts, not become an indefinite obstacle to building.

Whatever your preferred energy mix, permitting reform is necessary so America can build it!

[Jason Bordoff @JasonBordoff]

My take on the new permitting reform bill @ForeignPolicy. It is among the most important policy measures in decades to advance clean energy, meet rising energy needs, and rein in soaring energy prices--and very likely to lead to a net reduction in carbon emissions. When paired with strong climate policy, it is also necessary to allow the rapid buildout of infrastructure needed to drive emissions sharply down. Rejecting it because it may also benefit oil and gas projects would sacrifice a historic opportunity to advance American security, affordability, and clean energy goals simultaneously.
https://t.co/5I6fzzGG4U

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

Important point from @RealEJAntoni: Banks generally want to serve lawful customers. But when regulators and examiners rely on subjective standards like rep risk, banks have an incentive to anticipate Washington's political and ideological priorities rather than simply assess financial risk.

That's the underlying problem reform needs to address.

https://t.co/y27AS9JiM0

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

Agree with @EconWithNick. The OCC's findings reinforce why government-imposed reputational risk was a problem in the first place.

Removing it from bank supervision was an important first step. Congress should make that reform permanent through the FIRM Act while also addressing the BSA/AML incentives that can drive unnecessary debanking.

[Nick Anthony @EconWithNick]

My thoughts on the OCC's debanking report: The headlines sound definitive, but the evidence in the report leaves many questions unanswered. https://t.co/4TRH00PJkC

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

American banks are caught between two kinds of punishment. If they miss dirty money, regulators fine them. If they flag it and close the account, they get sued for debanking.

https://t.co/nOmCZIqrZv

[Americans for Free Markets @ForFreeMarkets]

AFFM applauds lawmakers for working across the aisle to cut unnecessary red tape, lower costs and give American businesses the certainty they need to invest, build and grow.

Congress should keep the bipartisan momentum going.

https://t.co/0xqpbzlAm3

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

But the northeastern United States does not have enough pipelines to fully meet New England’s demand for gas. As a result, the region imports L.N.G., which trades on global markets at a higher price than pipeline gas. This gas scarcity has not caused abundant clean energy to magically materialize in New England.

[Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias]

The clean energy provisions of the permitting deal are very good — and the fossil fuel provisions are mostly good too!

https://t.co/7fUfWGcT0S

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

Faced with the sudden loss of export demand, refiners would soon reduce operations. Moreover, because refineries produce several fuels together, lower refinery runs would also reduce supplies of gasoline and jet fuel, causing prices for those products to rise.

[Jason Bordoff @JasonBordoff]

In my latest column @ForeignPolicy, coauthored with @Bob_McNally (who served under Bush43 in same role I had under Obama), we argue that banning diesel exports would backfire. Rather than lowering prices, in the longer term it would harm the U.S. economically and geopolitically and undermine this administration's own energy dominance agenda. https://t.co/vSaOMK1j97

[National Taxpayers Union @NTU]

A diesel export ban would interfere with the market precisely when energy markets are under extraordinary stress.

Diesel is a globally-traded commodity, and its price is ultimately determined by market forces—not government mandates.

@AmerComm @consumerpal American Energy Leadership Institute @ForFreeMarkets @AFPhq @taxreformer @C3SolutionsNews @CFEconomy @CFandP @CFIFonline @ceidotorg @ConservAmerica @CASE_forAmerica @ConsumerChoiceC @FamBizCoalition Frontiers of Freedom @HispLeadFund @IPI Main Street Foundation @MarketInstitute @MtnStatesPolicy @PelicanInst @RioGrandeFndn @SBECouncil @southwestpolicy @Protectaxpayers @JoinYoungVoices

[David Ibsen @dlibsen]

To think about this issue clearly, start with this basic truth: banks want customers. They want to do business with almost every possible lawful customer, because they don’t make money by banning customers.

Good piece on the problem of debanking and how to fix it from @kerpen

https://t.co/KT6pFylKjs