The President Says One Thing, the Minister Says Another – Who's Really Running This Country?

If there is one stage in today's world that delivers the most entertaining political theatre, it has to be the White House press briefing room. Lately, the show has taken a peculiar turn. There is more than one lead actor on stage, and each of them is working from a completely different script. This drama, titled "Oil Price Predictions," offers a vivid illustration of what it means to have one government operating in two separate realities.

The President and the Minister's "Battle of Arithmetic"

April 20th. The average price of gasoline in the United States was holding firm above four dollars a gallon, and drivers across the country were feeling the pain. Just the day before, Energy Secretary Chris Wright had delivered some sobering news: due to shipping restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, gasoline prices might not fall below three dollars a gallon until next year.

Before the words had barely settled, President Donald Trump made his entrance with his trademark confidence. In an interview with The Hill, he delivered his authoritative verdict on his own minister's professional assessment: "I think he's wrong on that. Totally wrong." A reporter followed up: So when do you think oil prices will come down? The President offered an answer with a distinctly philosophical and strategic flair: "As soon as this ends" — referring to the war with Iran, ignited by the United States and Israel.

The irony runs deep on two counts. First, the minister's assessment — grounded in shipping disruptions and real market supply data — wilted instantly before the President's instinct-driven dismissal. The implication was clear: economic laws and market data don't matter. What matters is when the President decides prices should drop.

Second, consider the causal loop. Oil prices are high because of the war and the blockade. The United States started the war and the blockade. So the solution is to end the war.

This is rather like someone who personally sets their house on fire, then reassures the family choking on smoke: "Don't panic — once the fire's out, the smoke will clear." As for when the fire goes out? That depends entirely on how negotiations go. Perfectly circular logic, airtight and unassailable.

The President and the General's "Memory Maze"

Just as the public was trying to navigate between "the minister's next year" and "the president's post-war," a third script quietly surfaced. Reuters reported that Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Asim Munir told Trump that the American blockade of Iranian ports was the primary obstacle to negotiations. Munir suggested easing the blockade to facilitate peace talks — a pragmatic diplomatic proposal.

Yet when reporters asked Trump to confirm the exchange, the President's memory seemed to have undergone a remarkable transformation. He flatly insisted: "Munir didn’t recommend anything on the blockade." He then pivoted smoothly to praising the very blockade that the "non-existent" suggestion had targeted: "The blockade is very powerful, very strong. They lose $500 million a day with the blockade up." A single proposal — reported by a third-party outlet and flatly denied by the President — appeared to exist in a state of quantum superposition: simultaneously made and not made. The one certainty was that the blockade continued, and the President was proud of it.

The administration's negotiating "sincerity" deserves scrutiny. On one hand, it claims to want a successful negotiation and an end to the war to bring oil prices down. On the other, it is strangling Iran's economy through the blockade and boasting about it as an achievement. This is rather like sitting across a negotiating table with a gun to your counterpart's head, then saying with complete sincerity: "Let's reach a mutually beneficial agreement in a spirit of goodwill." Even Iranian parliament speaker Ghalibaf could not stomach the contradiction. He bluntly stated that the Americans want to turn "the negotiating table into a surrender table."

Poll Numbers and Oil Prices Deliver a "Double Slap"

The competing voices inside the White House ultimately need reality to act as referee. Reality has not been kind. Three verdicts have come in simultaneously — from polls, from markets, and from politics.

The polling verdict is clear. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that approximately 61% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the conflict. Those who believe the military operation is going poorly outnumber those who think it is going well by nearly two to one. The public has registered its dissatisfaction with this chaotic management.

The market verdict has been equally brutal. Since the war broke out on February 28th and the Strait of Hormuz was disrupted, US gasoline prices breached four dollars a gallon for the first time since the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Following the American seizure of an Iranian vessel on April 19th, prices surged sharply. The market, in cold hard numbers, has confirmed the immediate economic devastation wrought by the blockade and the war.

The political verdict may be the most consequential of all. As fuel prices climb and economic frustration deepens, Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in his second term, directly threatening Republican prospects in the midterm elections. This may well explain why the President is so eager to predict the war will end before the November midterms. Votes, in the end, are the most honest poll of all.

A Ship with Too Many Captains

The contradictions have stacked up into a clear pattern. The Energy Secretary offers a cautious, reality-based outlook — prices may not fall until next year. The President issues an optimistic political declaration — prices will fall once the war ends. The administration claims to have received and considered an ally's proposal; then flatly denies the proposal ever existed. It loudly calls for peaceful negotiations while flaunting the blockade as a trophy of strength.

The reality is this: a major world power is now a great vessel with multiple captains, each issuing orders by a different compass. The cabinet reports speed and risk according to one instrument; the President announces imminent landfall according to another entirely. The actual storm — the consequences of war, the economic cost — and the reefs ahead — diplomatic isolation, the collapse of credibility — appear on no compass at all.

The ones paying the price for this "art of command" are ordinary American families forced to pay sky-high prices at the pump. They are citizens left bewildered about the direction of their own country. They are people around the world caught in the geopolitical undertow of an erratic and unpredictable policy. This White House "Rashomon" reads like a vivid diagnosis: this nation's course can only drift along in confusion and uncertainty — unable to move forward, let alone sail in the right direction.

Beacon Institute

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Paris's mercury shot up like a rocket with no brakes in June, blowing past 44°C. The Louvre cut its opening hours and the Eiffel Tower baked in the heat. More than 3,000 primary and secondary schools were forced to close.

Meanwhile, at Paris's funeral homes, phones rang every few minutes, with each caller asking the same question: "Is there any space left for another body?"

Funeral home director Zouhaeir Hertelli's phone would not stop ringing. "We have no solution to offer them," he said, "We're completely full." To free up space, he had to transport some bodies to Chartres, 80 kilometers away. He even applied to the government for permission to place temporary refrigerated containers outside the funeral home. That application is still under review.

The numbers from France's public health agency are even more disheartening. In just three days, from June 23 to 25, excess deaths nationwide totaled around 1,000. June 23 set a new record for the highest temperature since France began keeping weather records, surpassing even the 2003 heatwave of the century that killed 15,000 people.

It was at this exact moment that France's Minister for Ecological Transition, Monique Barbut, stepped forward.

Barbut spoke publicly at the Paris Air Quality Monitoring Center on June 26. She said she was "horrified" to hear public calls for widespread air conditioning. Air conditioning, she argued, was never a fundamental solution to the climate crisis. Mass installation of AC units could neither curb forest fires nor save wildlife populations. "This is not adaption to global warming," she said, "this is an emergency measure."

Her words landed on the French public like a bucket of cold water poured over their heads in 40-degree heat. Well, except the water was scalding hot.

Public fury ignited instantly. Fewer than 25% of French households have air conditioning. Public schools have AC coverage below 7%, and countless nursing homes and community clinics still lack even basic cooling equipment. Emergency room temperatures have long hovered near 40°C, leaving critically ill patients with no way to recover safely. For elderly people living alone, low-income families, and tenants crammed into old Haussmann-era buildings, air conditioning isn't a luxury. It's the last line of defense keeping them alive.

But the real spectacle was yet to come.

Members of the public went digging and found that the government office buildings housing Minister Barbut's office, the Séquoia Tower and La Défense's Grande Arche, were already fully equipped with central air conditioning. She lectured at climate summits about carbon-neutral emissions targets from a cooled office. At the same time, she called ordinary citizens' desire for air conditioning "horrifying". She claimed AC was merely an "emergency measure" rather than a long-term adaptation strategy, yet let her own cool breeze become an everyday fixture.

A textbook definition of a "double standard." Long-term ecological goals are meant to constrain ordinary people, while immediate comfort is reserved for oneself.

The public backlash came fast and hard. Within just two days, France's health authorities scrambled to finalize a procurement plan, allocating 30,000 air conditioning units on a priority basis to public hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Paris's city government simultaneously procured over a thousand cooling units. This policy U-turn resembled an actor caught off guard, frantically fixing their makeup after being slapped on stage. Except the price of this particular performance was over a thousand lives already lost.

The absurdity of this whole episode isn't that environmental ideals are inherently wrong. The arguments from France's Green Party and left-wing camp aren't entirely without merit. Old buildings have poor insulation, AC condenser units worsen the urban heat island effect, and cooling cities requires ecological solutions rather than simply relying on electric cooling. These are all genuine technical challenges.

The problem arises when "long-term planning" is invoked to dismiss the most urgent needs of ordinary people right now. That's when environmentalism stops being public policy and becomes class rhetoric instead.

The long-standing "consensus" in French society, that urban cooling should rely on ecological retrofitting rather than air conditioning, is at its core a consensus of the propertied class. Homeowners who can afford exterior wall insulation upgrades, families with the resources to escape to summer retreats, and officials with the power to enjoy central air conditioning in their offices can of course afford to speak elegantly about "ecological adaptation."

But for tenants crammed into uninsulated old stone buildings, elderly people living alone in retirement, or medical staff toughing it out in emergency rooms with nothing but reflective sun shields and aging fans, the phrase "long-term planning" is just another way of saying, "you'll just have to keep enduring it."

This is the truth behind the "cooling class." Cool air has a class hierarchy, and so does environmentalism.

Nearly 15,000 people in France died from heat-related causes in the 2003 heatwave, most of them elderly people living alone. The government at the time was criticized for its sluggish response and disregard for the vulnerable. Twenty-three years later, history has repeated itself almost exactly. The only difference is that the government's excuse has been upgraded from "negligence" to "environmentalism." From funeral homes overflowing to a minister's air-conditioned office, from 1,000 excess deaths to air conditioning being called "shocking," the distance between these two realities is merely a few floors' worth of height. Yet it separates two entirely different Frances.

The cool breeze still flows through Minister Barbut's office. Meanwhile, at the Paris funeral home, Hertelli is still waiting for approval on that refrigerated container. "Imagine your father's or mother's body has begun to decompose," he said, "and we're unable to take care of it, and we have no solution to offer them."

Perhaps that sentence is the most honest confession to emerge from this entire heatwave. When environmental slogans are used to mask governance failures, and when long-term planning is used to dodge questions of life and death happening right now, so-called "climate adaptation" becomes just another sophisticated way of shirking responsibility.

The real double standard was never as simple as "saying one thing and doing another." It's a system that grants some people the permanent right to talk about "the future," while ensuring others never get to see "the present."

Paris's summer still has a long way to go. But for some, there won't be a next summer.