The Trump administration’s U.S. “energy dominance” agenda

The concept of “energy dominance” became a defining feature of the first Trump administration’s energy agenda, expanding the U.S. production footprint and leveraging energy exports for geopolitical gain. Mere hours into his second term as president, Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders, declaring a national energy emergency, unleashing American energy, and exiting the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet, the complexities of a globalized energy market raise questions about whether this approach can succeed without straining relations with both domestic consumers and international partners amid evolving market dynamics.

From “project independence” to “energy dominance”

U.S. energy policy has evolved significantly from the Nixon era’s response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo to the “energy dominance” strategy of the first Trump administration. In the aftermath of the embargo, President Richard Nixon launched Project Independence, an ambitious plan to achieve U.S. energy self-sufficiency, aiming to shield the nation from global supply shocks. Yet, despite efforts to boost domestic production and expand alternatives like nuclear power, the U.S. remained heavily reliant on imported oil, particularly from the Middle East.

Nixon’s policy ambitions fell short, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil persisted for decades. It was not until the “shale revolution” of the mid-2000s, driven by technological breakthroughs and market shifts, that domestic production surged — reshaping U.S. energy leadership more profoundly than policy alone. A surge in domestic production saw natural gas output climb 50% from 2005 to 2015 and oil production double between 2009 and 2019. This boom laid the foundation for the Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda, emphasizing expanded fossil fuel production, deregulation, and the use of U.S. energy exports for economic strength and geopolitical leverage.

This transformation has resulted in the United States achieving a significant level of “energy dominance,” reflected in record production capacity, export influence, and market leverage. Driven largely by the shale revolution, the U.S. has become the world’s largest oil and producer, accounting for 22% of global oil output — surpassing even Saudi Arabia. This surge has turned the U.S. into a net energy exporter for the first time in over six decades. It has also led to the U.S. emerging as the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter.

The geopolitical implications have been profound. U.S. LNG exports have provided critical support to European allies seeking alternatives to Russian gas, particularly after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, the U.S. supplied nearly half of Europe’s LNG imports, with most of it produced from shale drilling. Moreover, the resilience of U.S. production, driven largely by private-sector innovation and efficiency, has constrained OPEC’s ability to manipulate global oil prices, further reinforcing America’s market influence. 

Challenging the myth of energy dominance

While the U.S. has reshaped global energy markets with record oil and gas output, the notion of American energy dominance faces significant challenges. Structural barriers — such as infrastructure constraints, market volatility, and geopolitical dependencies — along with an oversimplified view that high production alone ensures energy security, raise doubts about its long-term sustainability.

While U.S. shale producers have made strides in improving scalability, their capacity to influence global oil markets remains limited compared to Saudi Arabia, whose vast spare capacity allows for rapid adjustments to output, giving it greater market leverage.

Shale oil cannot be brought to market as flexibly as true spare capacity, limiting its geopolitical influence compared to the market-shaping power wielded by OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia. Additionally, despite record output, domestic energy prices remain tied to global market fluctuations, reflecting the continued interdependence of energy markets and further weakening claims of dominance.

Energy leadership extends beyond hydrocarbons. It requires long-term investment in renewable energy sources, which are projected to be the fastest-growing energy segment globally, as well as next-generation technologies such as advanced nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, and grid-scale energy storage. The first Trump administration’s narrow focus on fossil fuels failed to secure leadership in these emerging fields, undercutting the sustainability of the U.S.’s energy position.

Moreover, the notion of “energy dominance” promotes a misleading narrative about market control. The idea that the U.S. could manipulate energy exports as a geopolitical tool to punish or reward other nations oversimplifies the realities of global markets. U.S. producers, while significant players, lack the collective market power of OPEC, and attempts to leverage energy as a weapon would likely provoke retaliation rather than submission.

Price stability and access to global energy markets — not isolation — are what truly benefit U.S. consumers and producers, as the interdependence of global energy systems means that attempts at self-sufficiency can disrupt market dynamics rather than provide long-term stability.

If the term “energy dominance” is to have any substantive meaning, it must extend beyond fossil fuel output to include technological innovation, market resilience, and global leadership in clean energy advancements. True dominance would mean leading in the energy technologies of tomorrow, balancing market power with environmental responsibility and global cooperation.

U.S. “energy dominance”under the first Trump administration 

The concept of “energy dominance,” as introduced during Trump’s first term, builds on the longstanding theme of energy independence but with a more assertive, global vision. First articulated by Trump on the campaign trail in 2016, the phrase signaled an ambitious shift in U.S. energy strategy, aiming to make the nation a dominant force in global energy markets. 

Launched in 2017, Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda sought to establish the U.S. as a global energy superpower through aggressive fossil fuel expansion and deregulation. Key policies included rolling back Obama-era regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and methane emission limits, and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement to prioritize fossil fuel development. The administration also approved major infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and expanded offshore drilling leases.

By 2019, U.S. crude oil and natural gas production had reached record highs, not only made the U.S. the world’s leading oil and LNG exporter. This surge also boosted the economy, creating jobs in shale-rich areas like Texas and North Dakota, and improving the trade balance. In addition, it reduced reliance on OPEC imports, enhancing energy supply security.

While Trump-era policies, including deregulation and tax cuts for oil and gas companies, created a favorable environment for increased production, the surge in output was also driven by market forces. Rising global demand, advancements in drilling technology, and greater efficiency in shale production played a significant role. High oil prices and OPEC’s production cuts further incentivized U.S. output, particularly in less profitable shale regions. Thus, the increase in production was shaped not only by policy but also by broader industry dynamics.

At the heart of the “energy dominance” strategy was a prioritization of fossil fuels over renewables, a stance that diverged from public sentiment. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey showed that 65% of Americans supported expanding renewable energy production. Nevertheless, the rollback of environmental regulations and the promotion of domestic oil and gas production reduced the incentive to accelerate clean energy adoption. The administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and reduced support for renewable energy projects delayed the transition to a more sustainable energy system. Federal incentives for fossil fuel industries, such as subsidies and tax breaks, were expanded, while those for renewables were curtailed.

Doubling down on fossil fuels

The second Trump administration appears firmly committed to reviving and expanding the “energy dominance” agenda. In this next phase, much like in Trump’s first term in the White House, the focus is on prioritizing U.S. fossil fuel energy production as a cornerstone of national strategy. 

Immediately following his election victory in November, Trump outlined plans to establish a National Energy Council aimed at ensuring America’s energy dominance, an often vaguely defined but unmistakably fossil-fuel-centric vision. The Republican Party’s 2024 platform underscored this commitment, emphasizing a return to energy independence followed by energy dominance, with promises to lower energy prices even below the record lows achieved during Trump’s first term.

This vision is encapsulated in the phrase “drill baby drill,” which candidate Trump employed during the campaign and repeated following President Joe Biden’s historic ban of 625 million acres of coastal water from drilling. For the second Trump administration, energy dominance is more than just about increasing production — it is framed as a key element of American freedom. According to this perspective, U.S. energy dominance is critical for securing economic growth, foreign policy independence, and a robust, energy-secure future free from foreign energy dependence. Critics, however, dismiss these efforts as part of a broader reaction against “defeatist energy policies” informed by climate change alarmism. The growing prominence of renewable energy sources may eventually challenge the sustainability of the Trump administration’s energy dominance strategy.

The strategy has already found strong support among GOP members in Congress, who have long aligned with its core objectives. With Republicans now holding a majority in both houses, the administration’s energy agenda stands to gain further momentum. Over the past two years, House Republicans have introduced key legislation, including the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act (HR 6009) and the Protecting Lower Energy Costs Act, signaling a renewed drive to solidify long-term American energy dominance.

Driving the second Trump administration’s energy dominance agenda

A critical new development in the administration’s energy strategy is the plan to establish a National Energy Council, which will be granted sweeping authority over federal agencies involved in energy production, regulation, and distribution. Poised to play a pivotal role in shaping and implementing the energy dominance agenda, the council will be tasked with streamlining bureaucratic processes, encouraging private sector investment, and fostering innovation across the energy sector. 

Under the leadership of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a strong proponent of an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, the council’s direction may extend beyond fossil fuels to include renewables such as wind, solar, and geothermal power, as well as nuclear energy. However, despite this potential for a more diversified energy focus, fossil fuel production is likely to remain a central priority under Burgum’s leadership, given his background in promoting North Dakota’s oil and gas industry. While he may explore technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, Burgum’s focus is expected to remain on maximizing U.S. fossil fuel output as a key element of the administration’s strategy.

Similarly, Chris Wright, the nominee for U.S. Energy Secretary, is expected to play a major role in advancing the “energy sobriety” philosophy that underpins the energy dominance agenda. While Wright has acknowledged the reality of climate change, he has downplayed its urgency and rejected the notion of a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. His views on the limitations of wind and solar energy, along with his opposition to subsidies for alternative energy, suggest that he will steer U.S. energy policy toward fossil fuel development while minimizing support for renewable energy initiatives. Together, Burgum and Wright’s leadership will likely ensure that fossil fuels remain central to the U.S. energy policy landscape, despite occasional rhetorical support for a more diversified energy portfolio.

Trump’s energy strategy: global implications

The Trump administration’s energy policies may face challenges from the ongoing growth of renewable energy sectors, resistance within the GOP from clean energy-friendly districts, and legal hurdles surrounding LNG export approvals. Additionally, the rise of clean energy technologies, particularly nuclear, may complicate its fossil fuel-focused agenda. Moreover, the incoming administration may struggle to meet its pledge to boost domestic production, as the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) latest forecast shows Permian growth offset by declines in other regions over the next two years.

Nevertheless, if fully pursued and largely successful, Trump’s U.S. “energy dominance” agenda could have significant implications for both the American and global energy markets. One potential risk is the prioritization of natural gas exports, which might strain domestic supply, raising costs for American businesses and households — all without necessarily fulfilling the promise of bringing new jobs to struggling communities.

Furthermore, Trump’s push for increased energy production faces complications from external factors, such as the imposition of tariffs on oil imports from allies like Canada and Mexico. This paradox arises as his focus on boosting domestic production conflicts with efforts to reduce oil prices, especially in an already saturated market.

Trump’s “energy dominance” could also challenge established global energy relationships, particularly with Gulf countries. While early in his presidency, he sought to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, ramping up U.S. oil and gas production directly conflicts with the interests of Gulf Arab states, who have long dominated the global energy market. Increased U.S. production has already weakened OPEC’s market authority, and Trump’s policies could further disrupt global energy cooperation, potentially fueling competition rather than collaboration between the U.S. and Gulf producers. Despite strong ties between U.S. companies and Gulf oil giants like Saudi Aramco, the rise in U.S. exports could introduce market volatility and test these relationships.

On a broader scale, Trump’s “America First” energy strategy could inadvertently boost global oil and gas supply, weakening OPEC+ efforts to stabilize prices. By ramping up exports, the U.S. could become a more influential global player, offering energy security to allies through diversified supply sources. This could reduce OPEC+’s bargaining power, potentially reshaping global energy geopolitics and shifting U.S. energy policy from dependency to strategic power.

However, perhaps the most significant consequence of Trump’s energy dominance agenda is that it could stifle investments in renewable energy technologies, making it harder for them to compete. Environmental rollbacks could delay the adoption of clean energy solutions, while the continued dominance of fossil fuels risks weakening global efforts to transition away from carbon-intensive energy. As the U.S. increases fossil fuel exports, it could also provide cheaper alternatives to renewables on the global market, further slowing the energy transition. Ultimately, Trump’s policies could set back the U.S. and global efforts to address climate change and promote sustainable energy solutions.

Conclusion

While the U.S. has achieved significant energy production milestones, the idea of American “energy dominance” remains a contested concept. The strategy’s focus on fossil fuels and deregulation may bolster short-term energy security, but it risks neglecting the long-term need for sustainable energy investments and global cooperation. The evolving global energy landscape, with its growing emphasis on renewables, could ultimately challenge the viability of the Trump administration’s fossil-fuel-driven approach.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.