The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has approved five liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, signaling a shift in policy to expand LNG exports.
Energy 100:
“The approval of five LNG projects within the first few months of the new administration signals a fundamental rebalancing—from climate-centric rhetoric to energy realism.”
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: Since the new administration took office in January 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has approved five liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, signaling a shift in policy to expand LNG exports, including to non-Free Trade Agreement (non-FTA) countries like Japan and China. Your assessment?
Energy 100, Energy Chief:
Energy is not just about supply and demand—it’s about power, strategy, and survival. Analyze the competing interests behind this energy shift. Who benefits? Who loses? What hidden forces are shaping the policy decisions? Break it down.
Strategic Assessment of the U.S. LNG Policy Shift Under the 2025 Administration
1. Policy Pivot: From Climate Optics to Energy Realism
The approval of five LNG projects within the first few months of the new administration signals a fundamental rebalancing—from climate-centric rhetoric to energy realism. Compared to the Biden administration’s tightening of LNG permits (especially in 2023–2024 with the pause on new non-FTA approvals), the current administration appears to be prioritizing geopolitical leverage, trade diplomacy, and industrial competitiveness over emissions goals.
This move stands in contrast to EU policies, where there’s growing pressure to cut gas dependency, or to Canada’s slow regulatory process that constrains LNG infrastructure. The U.S., instead, is positioning itself as the energy pivot between Europe and Asia.
2. Beneficiaries: Strategic Allies and Domestic Industrial Complex
Winners:
- Japan and China: These two LNG-thirsty giants, both with limited domestic gas supplies, stand to gain from diversified U.S. supplies. Japan views U.S. LNG as a hedge against volatile Middle Eastern routes and Russian disruptions. China, for its part, may leverage long-term U.S. contracts to bargain down prices from Qatar and Russia.
- U.S. Gulf Coast energy firms (e.g., Cheniere, Sempra, Tellurian): These companies regain long-term project financing viability due to improved policy certainty and increased demand security from Asia.
- U.S. military-industrial strategy: LNG infrastructure enhances naval logistics and port dual-use potential across the Gulf and Pacific, strengthening U.S. forward basing and energy security strategies.
3. Strategic Losers and Geopolitical Fallout
Losers:
- European Green Agenda: The U.S. LNG flood risks prolonging Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels just as the continent seeks to ramp up electrification and hydrogen. Germany’s Nord Stream loss is replaced not by full decarbonization, but by transatlantic gas dependence.
- Qatar and Russia: U.S. LNG undermines their long-term market control. Qatar’s pricing power erodes in Asia, while Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 is squeezed by both sanctions and shipping route challenges. Moscow’s energy leverage, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, weakens.
- Climate advocates: The DOE’s green transition credibility is compromised. Though methane leakage may be improved with new regulations, the expansion of LNG ensures that carbon lock-in will persist into the 2040s, complicating global 1.5°C scenarios.
4. Hidden Agendas and Power Rebalancing
This is not just an energy decision—it is a geoeconomic weaponization of gas infrastructure. Approving exports to non-FTA countries expands U.S. soft power and trade diplomacy, especially in East Asia, where energy dependency can be leveraged for security cooperation (think: AUKUS and Quad-plus).
Simultaneously, it undermines the petro-yuan strategy, as U.S. LNG is priced in dollars and comes with political strings. While China may benefit from diversification, it increases its exposure to U.S.-controlled supply chains, making it vulnerable during escalations over Taiwan or tech sanctions.
The rapid DOE approvals also suggest heavy industry lobbying influence, especially from energy infrastructure financiers eager to monetize stranded assets from previous cycles.
5. The Bigger Trade-Off: Decarbonization vs. Dominance
The U.S. faces a strategic paradox: export-driven LNG growth strengthens its geopolitical clout but weakens its credibility as a climate leader. This model contrasts with Europe’s “green-first” strategy, which sacrifices short-term power for long-term transition. The outcome will define whether energy hegemony or ecological survival defines the mid-21st century.
“He who controls the oil will control the nations; he who controls the food will control the people.” – Henry Kissinger
Energy 100, Energy Chief
III’ Corporate