EU’s $750 billion energy deal with Trump faces harsh reality check POLITICO warns

The European Union has narrowly averted a full-scale trade war with Donald Trump by committing to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. oil and gas before the end of his term. However, POLITICO claims, meeting this ambitious target is expected to be extremely challenging.

So far, Brussels has provided few specifics on how these purchases would be implemented. Factors such as limited U.S. energy supplies, technical constraints, and the EU’s limited authority over import agreements make the goal difficult to achieve, regardless of the details.

Laura Page, a senior analyst at the commodities firm Kpler, described the figure as “completely unrealistic,” calling the numbers “beyond wild.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 disrupted energy supplies, the EU has increasingly bought liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. Meanwhile, Trump has pushed for greater American energy sales as a condition to ease trade tensions with Europe.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised the benefits of diversifying energy sources and strengthening Europe’s energy security through these purchases, which would also help reduce reliance on Russian gas, oil, and nuclear fuels.

EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič reiterated the bloc’s readiness to pursue these purchases, expressing confidence that the target is achievable. However, scepticism remains.

In 2024, the EU spent €375 billion on energy imports, including €76 billion from the U.S., meaning imports from America would need to nearly triple over three years, requiring the EU to reduce purchases from other suppliers like Norway, which provides cheaper pipeline gas.

Removing Russian energy from the equation is also limited, as the EU imported only €23 billion in oil, gas, and nuclear fuel from Moscow last year.

From the U.S. side, last year’s total oil and gas exports amounted to $166 billion, so diverting all shipments to Europe—and then some—is “just never going to happen,” Page said. U.S. LNG exports typically go to the highest global bidder and are not tied to specific destinations.

Technical obstacles also arise because EU refineries can only process certain blends of American oil. Currently, the EU sources 12% of its oil and fuel from the U.S., which could rise to a maximum of 14%, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, Kpler’s head of crude analysis, calling the $750 billion target “a fantasy.”

A senior European Commission official cautioned that the deal depends on several conditions, including adequate LNG infrastructure in Europe and sufficient shipping capacity on the U.S. side. Still, the official insisted the numbers are based on analyses of EU needs, not arbitrary figures.

Another complication is that the EU does not directly purchase energy cargoes—the commitments rely on private companies’ intentions. The Commission official clarified that the target “is not something that the EU as a public authority can guarantee.”

Industry experts doubt that companies will follow through without clear commercial incentives. One gas specialist said, “The EU is not a company. Will they force EU companies to buy gas and oil from the U.S.? If there is a commercial rationale, companies will do it; otherwise, it’s just hot air.”

Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a senior researcher at the Centre on Global Energy Policy, questioned why the Commission would agree to such a lofty target given the obstacles. She suggested the EU was willing to accept any figure to avoid Trump’s threat of a 30% tariff, implying the deal was more about political calculation than practical feasibility.

By Tamilla Hasanova