Trump as President: More U.S. LNG for Europe, but a step back for a greener future

It’s still somewhat unclear how Donald Trump’s presidential comeback might impact Europe’s energy landscape. In the short term, many suggest there may be little immediate change. However, looking ahead, Trump’s return could shake up the European energy scene, particularly around liquefied natural gas (LNG). With his strong support for oil and gas, Trump may push for increased U.S. LNG exports to Europe. While more U.S. LNG might improve energy stability, it also carries geopolitical risks, especially in relation to Russia and the Middle East—not to mention the potential for slowing down the shift toward a sustainable energy future.

Under Biden, U.S. LNG exports faced restrictions when trading with countries outside free trade agreements. Trump, however, may remove those hurdles, making it easier to ship more LNG to Europe. This change could benefit countries like Spain, which have strong LNG processing capacity.

LNG Is not the long-term answer

Here’s the catch: while LNG might help Europe manage energy needs in the short term, it’s not a sustainable solution. LNG is cleaner than coal or oil, but it’s still a fossil fuel. Heavy investments in LNG infrastructure could delay the transition to zero-carbon alternatives like wind, solar, and energy storage.

Think of LNG as a “bridge fuel”—a stepping stone, but not the final destination. It can help balance the grid and fill gaps when renewables can’t keep up, but it’s essential to keep sight of the big picture. True sustainability lies in prioritizing renewables, energy storage, and efficiency improvements. These solutions don’t just reduce emissions; they also create a more resilient, independent energy system that isn’t swayed by global politics.

What does this mean for energy costs?

An increase in U.S. LNG might add some flexibility to European energy supplies, potentially helping stabilize prices to an extent. However, this should not distract from the longer-term impact: relying on fossil-based LNG introduces new uncertainties and risks linked to global geopolitics. For example, Trump’s stances on NATO and Iran could lead to policy changes that unsettle energy security in Eastern Europe or disrupt oil and gas markets, leading to further unpredictability.

The bottom line

Much remains uncertain regarding the consequences of Trump’s presidency, but we can be fairly sure that climate action and the green transition are not at the top of his agenda. This is a serious concern coming from the world’s second-largest emitter, and we must expect Europe to work actively to hold the U.S. accountable for upholding its international climate commitments.?

The best way to respond to an increasingly unstable political regime in the country that has been Europe’s most important ally, is to focus on building a strong Europe that is less vulnerable to political fluctuations. And we must prioritize the investments that will move us forward—renewable energy, storage solutions, and energy efficiency.

More U.S. LNG might bring temporary relief, but it’s not the answer to Europe’s energy goals.