Increased LNG Exports: Boosting the Economy and National Security

In a significant policy shift, the Department of Energy (DOE) has announced the resumption of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export approvals, signaling a renewed commitment to expanding U.S. energy dominance. This move, championed by the Trump administration, positions increased LNG exports as not only beneficial for the economy but also a strategic imperative for national security and international alliances.

On May 19, the DOE released a press statement emphasizing that the end of the Biden-era pause on LNG exports aligns with the public interest by fostering economic growth and supporting U.S. allies while purportedly posing minimal environmental risks. Energy Secretary Chris Wright articulated this perspective, stating, “President Trump was given a mandate to unleash American energy dominance, and that includes U.S. LNG exports.” He asserted that the expansion of LNG exports would benefit both Americans and the broader global community, framing this decision as a pivot away from the previous administration’s policies.

However, the backdrop of this announcement reveals a complex interplay of economic forecasts, environmental concerns, and geopolitical strategies. A December 2024 study under the Biden administration raised alarms about the potential impacts of unfettered LNG exports, predicting a 30 percent increase in domestic natural gas prices. This report was lauded by environmental advocates but met with skepticism from the fossil fuel industry and business groups, which accused the DOE of misrepresenting data to justify a prolonged export freeze.

Contrasting the earlier study, the DOE’s latest response suggests that the U.S. has an abundant supply of natural gas capable of meeting both domestic consumption and increased global demand, even under scenarios of high export volumes. The agency forecasts that expanded LNG exports could inject approximately $410 billion into the U.S. gross domestic product by 2050, bolstering the nation’s trade balance as well.

While the DOE acknowledges that domestic price impacts might occur, it asserts these would be modest and within historically observed limits, challenging the notion that increased exports consistently correlate with rising gas prices. Furthermore, the agency claims that tripling current LNG exports would only marginally elevate global greenhouse gas emissions—by no more than 0.1 percent through 2050—an amount deemed negligible for policy rejection. This assertion seeks to alleviate environmental concerns, although it has faced criticism from environmental groups who argue that the long-term consequences of increased fossil fuel reliance could be dire.

The DOE’s current stance also marks a departure from the Biden administration’s emphasis on environmental justice, as it explicitly states that such considerations will no longer factor into public interest evaluations for export permits. This policy shift aligns with executive orders from the Trump era that redefined the scope of environmental assessments, suggesting a more streamlined approach to economic interests over social equity in energy decision-making.

The strategic implications of this policy are noteworthy, especially as the U.S. aims to strengthen its geopolitical influence through energy exports. Increasing LNG shipments to allies not only enhances energy security but also positions the U.S. to compete more effectively with global suppliers, particularly Qatar. Recent high-profile discussions led by Trump in the Gulf states have emphasized expanding U.S. LNG exports to countries like Kuwait and Bahrain, while also courting Saudi Arabia for long-term import agreements.

Yet, the broader narrative remains contentious. Environmental advocates, such as those from the Sierra Club, argue that accelerating LNG exports will inevitably raise costs for American consumers, adversely affect frontline communities, and exacerbate public health issues. Mahyar Sorour, a policy director at Sierra Club Beyond Fossil Fuels, succinctly criticized the DOE’s position, asserting that “Big Oil and Gas CEOs are the only beneficiaries of a rubberstamp for LNG projects.”

As the energy landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this policy shift will be closely scrutinized by various stakeholders, from environmentalists to industry leaders. The balance between economic growth, environmental responsibility, and national security remains a complex challenge, one that will require ongoing dialogue and adaptation as the U.S. navigates its energy future.