Following a new trade agreement, the European Union will purchase $750 billion worth of energy from the United States. This comes despite statistics indicating that this level of LNG purchases contradicts Europe’s green energy policy plans.
It appears that Europe, much like America’s Asian allies, had no choice but to accept this deal to avoid tariffs, while now shifting from dependence on Russian gas to reliance on American gas.
According to Gas Bonyan, citing Euronews, under a new trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, Brussels has committed to purchasing approximately $750 billion in energy from Washington over the next three years. Announced on July 28 by U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, this agreement is part of a broader trade package that also includes mutual tariffs and strategic issues.
It seems that the EU and the US reached a temporary trade agreement to prevent a potentially devastating tariff war between two of the world’s largest economies, finalized just before the August 1 deadline.
EU Officials’ Enthusiasm for the Deal with Trump
The European Union has stated that this massive energy purchase aligns with its policy to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels. In a press conference in Scotland, von der Leyen said: “We still have significant amounts of Russian LNG entering the EU through the back door. The ultimate goal is to completely phase out Russian fossil fuels.”
She added that American LNG is a more suitable option for Europe in terms of both price and quality. In recent years, direct gas imports through Russian pipelines have significantly decreased, but LNG imports have continued. Now, with new contracts between European companies and American LNG projects (some still under construction), this trend may accelerate.
Tariffs: An Agreement Under the Shadow of Threats
In addition to energy commitments, Trump and von der Leyen also agreed on imposing a 15% tariff on a significant portion of European goods imported to the US.
This figure is lower than the White House’s earlier threats of 30% or even 20% tariffs, suggesting intense negotiations between the two sides.
However, heavy tariffs on European steel (50%) will remain in place, and separate decisions may be made regarding pharmaceuticals and microchips.
According to the U.S. Commerce Secretary, new tariffs may be announced in the coming weeks, particularly on pharmaceutical products, some of which are imported from Ireland.
Nevertheless, certain goods, including aircraft and parts, generic drugs, some chemicals, and semiconductor equipment, have been exempted from tariffs.
Gas Pressure Policy: An Experience Previously Implemented in Asia
This is not the first time the Trump administration has used tariffs to pressure trading partners into purchasing U.S. LNG.
Previously, Asian countries increased their imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas to avoid punitive tariffs.
Countries such as Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, and India signed long-term contracts with U.S. LNG projects, even when they did not have a real need for it or lacked sufficient infrastructure.
Analysts have warned that such imports could hinder environmental goals and the development of renewable energy in these countries, exposing them to long-term economic and infrastructural risks.
Energy Purchases: Part of a Strategic Package
According to official statements, the agreement includes extensive European purchases from the U.S., not only in energy but also in military equipment.
Additionally, the EU has promised to invest $600 billion in the U.S. economy, though the details of this investment remain unclear.
According to informed sources, even if part of the $250 billion annual energy purchases from the U.S. replaces existing contracts, the total volume will still represent a significant increase compared to the current level of energy trade between the two sides.
The energy consultancy ClearView Partners described this level of U.S. energy exports as “far exceeding” Trump’s previous agreements, even with China.
Open Questions About Implementation
While the broad outlines of the agreement are clear, the details of how the energy commitments will be fulfilled remain uncertain.
Although some European energy companies have already signed contracts to receive LNG from U.S. projects, delivering such quantities requires extensive transportation and import infrastructure.
Some analysts believe that, given the current U.S. energy export capacity, achieving the $750 billion target over three years—even with existing purchases—will require a significant increase in U.S. energy production and exports.
Will the LNG Deal with the US Lead to a Green Setback for Europe?
For years, the European Union has positioned itself as a leader in combating climate change and promoting renewable energy.
These efforts include initiatives like REPowerEU and heavy investments in wind and solar power plants.
In 2024, nearly half of Europe’s electricity was generated from renewable sources, and forecasts suggest that gas consumption in Europe could decrease by up to 67% by 2040.
Thus, an LNG import deal exceeding current needs could slow or even stall the transition to clean energy. In other words, the new agreement with the Trump administration for $750 billion in fossil fuel imports over three years will obscure and undermine Europe’s climate commitments and carbon reduction plans.
The European Commission has estimated that between 2022 and 2027, an additional €210 billion will be needed to finance REPowerEU. If Europe is to truly implement this program, large-scale fossil gas purchases from the U.S. will pose significant obstacles.
Additionally, plans such as increasing the number of gas-fired power plants in Germany indicate a move in the opposite direction of Europe’s green goals.
Europe’s Dependence on a New Energy Supplier
It can be argued that purchasing LNG from the U.S. not only fails to complement the REPowerEU program but may entirely neutralize it.
Moreover, sources like Zero Carbon Analytics have warned that, even without Russian gas, the EU does not need such a high volume of LNG imports from the U.S.
Some sources have also indicated that this purchase is driven not by Europe’s actual energy needs but primarily by economic and tariff pressures from Washington.
In fact, many analysts view this agreement as more of a geopolitical and commercial compromise than a strategic energy choice. From this perspective, instead of continuing its independent green energy path, Europe has acquiesced to a deal that may prove costly for its climate goals in the long term.
Analysts note that infrastructure such as LNG terminals, pipelines, and gas distribution systems requires significant investment, making the transition to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and batteries more challenging in the future. A strengthened gas-dependent structure could make replacing it with renewables more expensive and slower.
For this reason, some media outlets, such as the Financial Times, have viewed the U.S. LNG purchase policy with skepticism. A policy ostensibly aimed at reducing dependence on Russia could push Europe toward a new financial and infrastructural dependence on U.S. fossil energy, which will come at a heavy cost for Europe’s climate and economic future.
