The recent pledge secured by US President Donald Trump, promising a surge in European imports of US liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil products and nuclear goods valued at $750 billion within three years, is drawing scrutiny and raising critical questions about its feasibility and political implications.
EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jörgensen’s written responses to inquiries from the European Parliament, as reported by “Der Spiegel”, reveal a significant disconnect between the public commitment and the underlying reality. Jörgensen states that the $750 billion figure represents a mere “estimated intention of private actors” to procure energy from the United States, clarifying that neither the EU nor its member states directly “buy or sell energy”. He asserts that increasing US imports will “contribute to the gradual phasing out of remaining Russian energy imports.
However, the seemingly straightforward explanation has failed to quell skepticism. Green Party MEP Jutta Paulus sharply criticized Jörgensen’s remarks to “Der Spiegel”, asserting that he is fully aware the proclaimed sum is unrealistic. Paulus argues the projection is untenable, citing the simple fact that the United States lacks the export capacity to meet such an ambitious target. Last year’s energy imports from the US to the EU were a comparatively modest $77 billion, demonstrating the sheer scale of the projected increase.
The discrepancy highlights potential political maneuvering. The announcement, seemingly designed to signal a strengthened transatlantic alliance and a decisive move away from Russian energy dependence, appears vastly overblown. Critics suggest that the Trump administration may be leveraging exaggerated import figures to extract concessions from the EU on trade or other geopolitical matters, while the EU itself may be providing a façade of progress to appease domestic constituencies concerned about energy security.
Furthermore, the disclosure underscores a broader challenge: the EU’s reliance on private actors to deliver its energy policy goals presents significant risks. Without concrete contractual commitments and demonstrable infrastructure development, the $750 billion pledge risks becoming an empty promise. The question remains whether the ambition to diminish Russian influence can be realized without creating a new, equally precarious dependence on a single supplier and whether the EU’s energy transition is being driven by genuine progress or by politically expedient rhetoric.
