US-EU $750 Billion Energy Deal Faces Major Reality Check
JMiks/Shutterstock
The EU’s pledge of $750 billion in strategic purchases of US energy over the next three years has helped seal a framework trans-Atlantic trade agreement, cementing energy trade between the two sides even if actual purchases are likely to fall short — potentially meaningfully so — of the headline figure, analysts and experts say.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's promise to facilitate the purchase of $250 billion worth of US LNG, crude, oil products, and nuclear fuel and technology annually over the next three years was the centerpiece of the trade framework agreement reached over the weekend, facilitating a halving of proposed baseline US tariffs on EU imports to 15%. The commission also committed $600 billion in private investment in the US economy, as well as to weapons purchases as European Nato members aim to ramp up defense spending.
The headline figure was quickly met with significant skepticism by analysts and energy experts.
At a high level, the annualized figure would equate to roughly three-quarters of the value of all US energy-related exports sent globally, based on 2024 figures of $332.4 billion provided by the US International Trade Commission. From the EU's perspective, the $250 billion pledge is equivalent to nearly 60% of the value of its global energy imports, which hit €376 billion ($410 billion) last year.
What is not clear is whether multiyear deals signed through 2028 would be recognized as going toward the $750 billion figure, even if sums were not spent until years later — say, under a long-term LNG supply deal that extended well into next decade.
"The EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of US energy exports through 2028," the White House said in a fact sheet, without elaborating.
"Part of the problem, as with the other [US] trade deals, is that this is a high-level political agreement, not a full-fledged, fully hashed-out trade deal," said Emily Stromquist, Washington-based managing director of consultancy firm Teneo. "That makes it difficult to truly unpack the range of implications this may have."
Like the handful of other trade deals US President Donald Trump has announced under his second term, one key source of skepticism is how governments can convince or force private companies to purchase or sell US energy at the expense of other market participants and regardless of price.
“There's plenty of healthy skepticism on whether these investment and purchase numbers will be met,” said Brigham McCown, director of the Initiative on American Energy Security at Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank. “Yet both sides want to avoid a trade war.”
One LNG trader at a European utility said he was "not sure how it will be enforced without government intervention," adding that even "very generous estimates" wouldn't take annual energy trade between the two parties to the $250 billion level.
Fred Hutchison, CEO of pro-US LNG export group LNG Allies, said both sides can do a lot to encourage additional commercial deals in the LNG space, but "neither government has any control over what happens commercially."
Hutchison noted "differing interpretations from both sides" on what would meet the terms of the trade agreement and that there is "not a lot of detail there," but he said he was encouraged by the green light given to US LNG by domestic regulators under the Trump administration.
The US and EU are expected this week to release a joint statement on the agreement, which EU officials described as a nonlegally binding document. The commission will then be tasked with translating the high-level negotiated deal into a legally binding agreement backed by a majority of EU members.
Nuclear, Gas Offer Most Upside
Even if EU purchases of US energy are unable to move toward $250 billion per year, upside is possible from the less than $80 billion the bloc spent last year on US energy imports, according to Bloomberg calculations.
"If you look at the perspective that we will be phasing out the Russian energy supply by 2027 ... it is very clear that Europe will need the solid, consolidated and reliant supply of energy," European Commissioner for Trade Maros Sefcovic told a press conference Monday.
Von der Leyen cited intentions to lean on “significant purchases” of US LNG, oil and nuclear fuels to support the EU's plans to phase out Russian gas and oil by 2027. Russia accounted for 11% of piped gas and 17% of LNG to the EU in the first quarter of this year, according to Eurostat.
"This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said, adding that discussions with Dan Jorgensen, the European for Energy and Housing, will follow regarding the potential for using the EU Energy Platform to facilitate pooled purchases as one approach.
The US is already the EU’s largest supplier of LNG, shipping 37.1 million tons — or around 43% of its global volumes — to the bloc in 2024, according to ship-tracking analytics firm Kpler.
Energy Intelligence's LNG Project Database updated this month shows six liquefaction projects under construction that will roughly double current US LNG capacity via additions of roughly 83 million tons per year by 2029. US LNG is fully destination-flexible, meaning offtakers can — and do — typically respond to market forces and arbitrage economics in deciding where to flow volumes or whether to even take possession of contracted cargoes.
Even if all 83 million tons/yr of new supply went to Europe, however, it would amount to an estimated $52 billion/yr spent on US LNG, according to Energy Intelligence calculations, hardly meeting the pledged purchase target. Actual purchases are sure to come in lower.
“Even if EU gas import needs are higher in the coming years, as is widely expected, demand is unlikely to increase two- or threefold," Teneo's Stromquist said.
Nuclear is one overlooked area to watch for additional spending, particularly given the heavier direct role governments play in the sector versus oil and gas.
While there are limits to US enrichment capacity — which currently isn’t sufficient to even cover one-third of US reactor demand at a time Trump seeks to expand nuclear power — it is possible EU member states could sign deals with US nuclear giants such as Westinghouse or US small modular reactor providers for new reactors.
EU countries are only able to rely on two companies for large reactors — France’s EDF and Westinghouse.
In 2024, the EU purchased less than 6% of its natural uranium and enriched uranium from the US, although it relies on a single US uranium conversion facility for about 22% of its conversion services.
One area with more limited upside is oil. The US sent over 2.17 million barrels per day of crude and products to the EU last year, according to Kpler, representing around 15% of the EU's oil imports.
However, US crude production is nearing its plateau, and the country's existing crude export capacity is generally underutilized rather than poised for expansion.