Two smart pieces of commentary explore why OPEC's decision to lift output was a split decision for the White House, which openly called for higher production.

Situational awareness: "Oil prices rose Friday, holding on to more than three-year highs, supported by continuing risks to supply in Libya, Iran and North America," the Wall Street Journal reports.

1. In Bloomberg's opinion section, Harvard's Meghan O'Sullivan writes that President Trump may have overplayed his hand by taking tough stances against Iran and Venezuela at a time of tightening markets.

  • Unintended: "Trump seems to have been too confident in his ability to make foreign policy first and think about energy next. A byproduct of his 'energy dominance' approach has been to reinforce OPEC’s relevance at a time when the future of the cartel has been in question. Given Trump’s longstanding animosity toward OPEC, this result was surely unintended," she writes.

2. The Atlantic Council has a good interview with RBC Capital Markets' Helima Croft. She's more bullish on how the White House fared, calling the administration the "biggest winner" from the OPEC meeting.

  • "President Trump intervened in the OPEC decision-making in April with his first Tweet criticizing the organization, posted while they were meeting in Jeddah. He kept up the pressure and there were reports that America wanted a million barrels, and they got the number they wanted," she writes.
  • Yes, but: Croft later notes that it's not all sunny for the U.S., because logistical constraints in the Permian basin are slowing shale's growth. "This puts the White House back in a position where it is forced to ask Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies for help. And that is why the United States is back in this position of dependence," she said.

Go deeper

4 hours ago - Podcasts

Facebook boycott organizers share details on their Zuckerberg meeting

Facebook is in the midst of the largest ad boycott in its history, with nearly 1,000 brands having stopped paid advertising in July because they feel Facebook hasn't done enough to remove hate speech from its namesake app and Instagram.

Axios Re:Cap spoke with the boycott's four main organizers, who met on Tuesday with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other top Facebook executives, to learn why they organized the boycott, what they took from the meeting, and what comes next.

Boycott organizers slam Facebook following tense virtual meeting

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Civil rights leaders blasted Facebook's top executives shortly after speaking with them on Tuesday, saying that the tech giant's leaders "failed to meet the moment" and were "more interested in having a dialogue than producing outcomes."

Why it matters: The likely fallout from the meeting is that the growing boycott of Facebook's advertising platform, which has reached nearly 1000 companies in less than a month, will extend longer than previously anticipated, deepening Facebook's public relations nightmare.

Steve Scalise PAC invites donors to fundraiser at Disney World

Photo: Kevin Lamarque-Pool/Getty Images

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise’s PAC is inviting lobbyists to attend a four-day “Summer Meeting” at Disney World's Polynesian Village in Florida, all but daring donors to swallow their concern about coronavirus and contribute $10,000 to his leadership PAC.

Why it matters: Scalise appears to be the first House lawmakers to host an in-person destination fundraiser since the severity of pandemic became clear. The invite for the “Summer Meeting” for the Scalise Leadership Fund, obtained by Axios, makes no mention of COVID-19.