Trump's Historic EU Trade Deal: Energy Dominance Doctrine In Action

Forbes

17 hours ago

The EU and the US agree on a trade-tariff deal with a 15% tariff for the vast majority of EU ... More products, as seen in this photo illustration in Brussels, Belgium, on July 28, 2025. (Photo by Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
In line with the energy dominance paradigm, the Trump administration has struck a deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that calls for the EU to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy exports and invest $600 billion in the U.S. economy by 2028. In exchange, Washington will cap import tariffs at 15% on most EU goods starting August 1st, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. Certain products - aircraft, semiconductor equipment, select agricultural exports, and some chemicals - will be exempt from tariffs altogether.
This arrangement brings partial relief from the trade tensions but remains far from free trade. The 15% ceiling adds predictability while preserving protectionism. Sensitive European goods like steel and aluminum will be managed under tariff-rate quotas, where fixed volumes enter at lower tariffs and excess imports face higher rates.
A Political Understanding, Not a Binding Treaty
For all its ambitious terms, no formal treaty has been signed. This remains a political handshake that now needs to be written down and implemented. Hammering out the details will be the real test, as both sides are already offering different interpretations of the same pledges.
The White House insists the EU's $600 billion investment will be entirely "new" money, 'in addition to the over $100 billion EU companies already invest in the United States'. Brussels has been more cautious, saying companies have only "expressed interest" in future investment by 2029. Moreover, these sweeping targets depend on private decisions, not state control. No one can compel private EU companies to buy $750 billion in U.S. fuels or invest $600 billion in American infrastructure.
The enforcement mechanism relies on Trump's own judgment. As long as he perceives progress and can claim wins, the pact may hold. But perceived shortfalls might spark new demands or punitive measures.
The Numbers Don't Add Up
The Trump administration's goal is to boost U.S. fossil and nuclear exports while narrowing the goods trade deficit with the European Union, which stood at $236 billion in 2024. That year, total U.S.-EU goods trade reached $976 billion. The U.S. exported $370 billion worth of goods to the EU and imported $605 billion. The aim is not only to close the existing deficit, but to create a significant trade surplus.
The EU imported 51 bcm of U.S. LNG in 2024, worth $12.2 billion (if we assume an average LNG price of $6.59 per mmBtu). Scaling that to $250 billion annually would require increasing LNG trade more than twentyfold—a leap that is logistically impossible under current infrastructure and market conditions. U.S. LNG export terminals are near capacity, and building new infrastructure takes years. Reaching $250 billion in sales just to the EU would require Europe to purchase a very large portion of total U.S. oil and gas exports.
The $600 billion EU investment target faces similar constraints. This exceeds roughly €498 billion ($540 billion) what the EU invested in major priority sectors like climate, energy, transport, and clean technology in 2023. Brussels is essentially committing to send more investment abroad than it spends at home on the green transition. In GDP terms, the annual investment flow of $200 billion is comparable to the combined GDPs of Portugal and Slovakia.
Why set these impossible targets? Because they work politically. The Trump administration wants big goals to frame the EU relationship in transactional terms. Europe wants stable energy supply and tariff relief. The figures may be unattainable, but they send a clear message about economic alignment and reduced exposure to Russia and China.
There is precedent for inflated purchase pledges in Trump-brokered deals. The 2019 Phase One trade agreement with China set ambitious quotas for Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. China never came close to hitting them. To be fair, former President Biden also liked aspirational targets, such as 30 GW of offshore wind capacity to be installed in the U.S. by 2030. So such strategies straddle political party line.
Europe's Strategic Calculations
Why would Europe accept what appears to be a lopsided arrangement? The motivations are threefold: energy security, economic pressure, and geopolitical insurance.
First, the EU gains assurances on U.S. energy supply. With Russia largely sidelined as an energy partner, Europe needs reliable alternatives. The United States, now the world's top producer of both oil and natural gas, is a leading candidate. U.S. nuclear technologies are under active consideration in several EU member states, including Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Czech Republic. Plans range from large-scale reactors, such as the Westinghouse AP1000, to small modular reactors (SMRs) from companies like NuScale, GE Hitachi, and Holtec. In addition to securing U.S. reactor designs and engineering, these projects will require a reliable fuel supply, much of which was historically provided by Russia.
Second, the deal heads off a trade war. Trump had threatened 25-30% tariffs on EU cars and other goods, which would have hit Germany particularly hard. By accepting the 15% cap and making purchase commitments, Brussels avoids confrontation and buys time.
Finally, there's the temporal calculus. The commitments stretch to 2028-2029, potentially beyond the current U.S. presidential term. With potential new leadership in Washington, the more onerous aspects could be renegotiated or quietly dropped.
Aspirational Targets as Policy Tools
This agreement reflects Trump's long-held energy dominance doctrine, which prioritizes U.S. fossil and nuclear exports while ignoring renewables. The deal fits this framework perfectly: it locks in fossil fuel exports and aims to close the trade gap. For the EU, it provides energy security, tariff relief, and stability in an uncertain geopolitical environment.
The $750 billion energy goal is not feasible, and the $600 billion investment figure is soft, at best. Yet the agreement serves both parties' strategic objectives. This is a historically significant deal not because the numbers are realistic, but because it demonstrates how both sides want to manage their economic relationship going forward. The aspirational targets are the feature, not the bug, of this approach.