Energy experts are casting doubt on the feasibility of a new transatlantic energy deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, calling it overly ambitious and based on unrealistic expectations.
The agreement, part of a broader U.S.-EU trade framework revealed on Sunday, includes a commitment for the EU to purchase $250 billion annually in American oil, natural gas, and nuclear technologies over the next three years, totaling $750 billion.
While the deal was hailed by Trump as a cornerstone of renewed U.S.-EU trade cooperation and a pillar of American “energy dominance,” analysts argue the proposal lacks a practical mechanism for enforcement—particularly in a deregulated European energy market dominated by private, shareholder-owned companies.
“Even if Europe wanted to increase its imports, I don’t know the mechanism by which the EU tells companies to buy more U.S. energy,” said Matt Smith of energy consultancy Kpler. He described the $250 billion target as “pie in the sky.”
Industry Doubts and Market Reaction
Though U.S. energy stocks saw an initial boost on Monday following the deal’s announcement, investor enthusiasm faded quickly amid doubts about the deal’s details and feasibility. Currently, U.S. fossil fuel exports to the EU represent about $75 billion annually—far below the proposed new target.
Experts point out that meeting the deal’s goals would require both a significant increase in the volume of U.S. energy imports and an assumption that oil and gas prices will rise or stay elevated—something that may conflict with both Europe’s efforts to reduce consumer energy bills and Trump’s stated aim of lowering oil prices.
“This agreement makes no sense,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, an analyst at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “It assumes a massive redirection of supply and sustained high prices, which neither side necessarily wants.”
Conflicting with Europe’s Green Goals
The deal also appears to contradict the EU’s long-term climate strategy, which includes a commitment to phase out Russian gas imports by 2028 and to decarbonize its economy. Critics note that increased U.S. fossil fuel imports may undermine the bloc’s climate agenda.
“Companies are accountable to shareholders and aim to buy the cheapest energy sources available,” Smith added. “They won’t make procurement decisions based on political declarations.”
Conclusion
Despite the political fanfare, the $750 billion EU-U.S. energy deal faces serious implementation hurdles. Without clear policy mechanisms, industry buy-in, or alignment with the EU’s climate goals, experts warn the agreement may remain more symbolic than substantive.
