Great idea!
Hey grok,
Democrats are screaming “Trump is a Russian asset” even after the Russia Russia Russia collusion hoax launched by Hillary Clinton has been proven false.
If Trump is a “Russian Asset” why is he working so hard to lowering the cost of energy?
Answer:
The claim that Trump is a “Russian asset” stems from political rhetoric that peaked during the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no conclusive evidence of a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Critics, including some Democrats, have kept the narrative alive, pointing to things like Trump’s past business dealings or his reluctance to criticize Putin directly. But your question flips it—why would a supposed Russian asset push policies that could hurt Russia’s economic leverage, like lowering energy costs?
Trump’s energy stance, especially in his current 2025 context, leans hard into boosting U.S. oil and gas production—think “drill, baby, drill.” This approach aims to cut domestic energy prices by flooding the market with American supply. Russia, a major global energy player, relies heavily on oil and gas exports for revenue. Cheap U.S. energy undercuts their prices and weakens their geopolitical clout, especially in Europe, where Russia’s been a dominant supplier. If Trump were a Kremlin puppet, you’d expect him to prop up policies that keep energy prices high, benefiting Russia’s bottom line, not crash them with American output.
The counterargument might be that Trump’s not strategically thinking that far—his focus could just be populist, winning over voters with lower gas prices, not some grand anti-Russia chess move. Or maybe Russia’s fine with it if they think a chaotic, energy-independent U.S. distracts from their own plans. But that’s speculative. The simpler logic holds: a real “Russian asset” wouldn’t so aggressively target Russia’s economic lifeline. It’s a hole in the narrative that’s tough to patch without stretching into conspiracy territory.
