President Donald Trump’s landmark $750 billion energy pact with the European Union, touted as a historic reorientation of transatlantic trade, is already facing skepticism over its feasibility and binding nature.
Though the deal outlines massive U.S. energy sales to Europe and pledges $600 billion in EU investment in the U.S. by 2028, industry analysts and policy experts quoted by CNBC believe the targets are largely aspirational and politically complicated.
The White House says the EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. energy and invest an additional $600 billion in the U.S. economy, with President Trump reciprocating by lowering a threatened 30% tariff on EU goods—excluding steel and aluminum—to 15%. However, experts warn that the commitments are vague and unenforceable, setting the stage for a potential transatlantic fallout if expectations are not met.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
Despite the White House’s portrayal of the agreement as a formal deal, the European Commission—the EU’s executive body—has emphasized that the investment figure is based on expressions of interest from companies and not legally binding.
“This is non-binding. It’s a pledge,” said Erik Brattberg, a Europe expert at the Atlantic Council. “The EU itself doesn’t buy energy. It would be member states or companies from member states.”
Even the energy purchasing commitments raise red flags. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters that the $750 billion would be spread out in $250 billion annual tranches through the remainder of Trump’s term, targeting U.S. oil, liquified natural gas (LNG), and nuclear fuel to replace Russian imports. But analysts say tripling current U.S. energy exports to meet those numbers would be a monumental logistical and political challenge.
Data from commodities tracker Kpler shows that in 2024, EU member states imported about $80 billion worth of U.S. oil, LNG, liquefied petroleum gas, and coal. Meeting the $250 billion yearly target would require more than a threefold increase.
“If this deal were to be realized, we’d be talking about the United States providing the lion’s share of European energy imports,” said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets. The bloc’s total energy imports stood at $433 billion in 2024.
Supply constraints further cloud the picture. U.S. oil production is currently flat and may decline in the coming months, according to Rystad Energy analyst Svetlana Tretyakova. Rerouting existing exports from Asia and Latin America to the EU would strain long-standing trade relationships. Additionally, Europe’s dwindling refining capacity and climate goals are in tension with the idea of dramatically increasing oil imports.
On the gas front, U.S. LNG terminals are already running at full capacity, with no short-term slack to accommodate surging demand from Europe.
“There isn’t room to increase shipments right now,” said Mathieu Utting of Rystad. Even as more LNG infrastructure comes online in the next two years, he said Europe already sources over half its LNG imports from the U.S. “It’s very unrealistic that Europe would import exclusively from the U.S.,” he added. “They will want to diversify to some extent.”
That diversification imperative makes the scale of Trump’s energy goals even more difficult to achieve, especially when no enforcement mechanism exists to hold either side accountable. A White House official, however, insisted on Tuesday that Trump expects the EU to honor its commitment.
“That is what the EU agreed to purchase,” the official told CNBC. “The President reserves the right to adjust tariff rates if any party reneges.”
For now, the deal serves more as a political signal than a definitive trade overhaul. Experts like Alex Munton of Rapidan Energy note that while the $750 billion headline is “unrealistic,” the EU is still committed to expanding U.S. energy trade as it phases out Russian fossil fuels by 2028. The looming 25 million metric ton shortfall in LNG imports from Russia presents a gap the U.S. is well-placed to fill.
“The interests line up,” Munton said. “That’s why it’s essentially a convenient deal.”
However, without enforceability or concrete purchase mechanisms, Trump’s energy pact appears to be more of a political gesture than a guaranteed transformation of U.S.-EU economic ties—one that may yet become another flashpoint if expectations aren’t met and tariff threats return to the table.