President Donald Trump on July 27 touted a sweeping trade agreement that he said would see the European Union purchase $750 billion worth of American energy over the next three years. The deal, according to Trump, also includes a 15% tariff on most EU exports to the United States.

But key details remain unclear — and European officials are offering a markedly different interpretation.

While a White House fact sheet claims the EU “will purchase” the energy as part of the agreement, the European Commission’s summary stops short of any binding language. Instead, it notes that European companies “have shown interest” in investing up to $600 billion across multiple sectors, a far cry from the direct government-to-government energy purchase Trump described.

The agreement, as it stands, is not legally binding, raising questions among analysts and lawmakers about how much of Trump’s announcement reflects enforceable policy versus aspirational goals.

Part of the issue is that the energy commitment, which averages $250 billion annually through 2028, could be both economically unrealistic and potentially harmful to American consumers.

The scale of the EU’s energy purchase pledge comes into question when you consider existing trade figures. According to Reuters, the European Union imported approximately $64.5 billion worth of energy from the United States. This total includes around $40.1 billion in crude oil (573 million barrels), $21.8 billion in liquefied natural gas (35.3 million tons), and about $2.7 billion in metallurgical coal. When compared to the EU’s overall annual expenditure on these commodities, roughly $250 billion for oil, LNG, and coal combined, U.S. supplies accounted for about one quarter of the EU’s total purchases in these categories.

Although the United States is the EU’s largest supplier of LNG, the EU remains committed to energy security by diversifying its sources and continues to import significant amounts of energy from countries such as Norway, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Russia.

While the commitment to buy $750 billion in U.S. energy appears in public statements and fact sheets, experts and analysts widely consider this goal to be “fantastical” and essentially unreachable. The new deal would require quadrupling LNG exports, a logistical stretch for both the U.S. and the EU. Achieving the agreed volume would require diverting a significant share of all U.S. energy production to Europe, disrupting other trading relationships and global markets.

On the United States side, domestic energy costs would continue to rise should the United States actually fulfill this agreement. Multiple Department of Energy studies have found that expanding LNG exports directly increases domestic natural gas prices, which in turn raises electricity costs.

According to DOE analysis, under high-export scenarios, 2050 natural gas prices could increase by 31%.

According to data from the American Progress Foundation, nearly 60 utilities requested rate increases totaling $38.3 billion in 2024, affecting roughly 56.7 million customers. That trend has accelerated in 2025, with utilities seeking more than $29 billion in hikes during just the first half of the year, more than double the $12 billion requested during the same period in 2024, according to energy industry reports.

State regulators approved $9.7 billion in net rate increases in 2023, and analysts say that figure could climb significantly if current requests are granted.

For the average American household, increased LNG exports translate to:

• Up to $122.54 per year in additional energy costs (combining natural gas and electricity)
• Up to $46.52 per year for households that use natural gas for heating
• Up to $118.37 per year in higher electricity bills

These increases represent approximately 0.5% of average household income and about 3.4% of total energy bills.

Utilities across multiple states have already blamed LNG exports for higher energy bills. In Virginia, Dominion Energy collected $1.28 billion in additional fuel costs from ratepayers between 2020 and 2023, directly attributing the increases to LNG exports that drove up domestic gas prices Similar impacts have been reported by utilities in Ohio, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, Colorado, and Indiana

The Trump administration has simultaneously moved to eliminate subsidies for renewable energy sources while promoting fossil fuel exports. Executive orders signed in July 2025 terminated clean electricity production and investment tax credits for wind and solar facilities, arguing these sources are “unreliable” and threaten grid stability.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy while enhancing federal support for fossil fuels. Projects must now commence construction within one year or be operational by the end of 2027 to qualify for remaining credits, a significant tightening from previous requirements.

Solar and wind provided 95.7% of new U.S. electricity-generating capacity in early 2025, with natural gas accounting for only 4.2%. Eliminating subsidies will significantly slow this renewable deployment, forcing utilities to rely more heavily on natural gas plants.

Renewable energy helps reduce overall natural gas consumption by providing zero-marginal-cost electricity during peak production periods. The International Energy Agency analysis shows that low renewable costs can significantly reduce natural gas generation, while high renewable costs favor increased gas usage

Agricultural operations are particularly vulnerable to electricity price increases, as energy costs average 6-15% of total farm expenses. Higher energy costs would “generally lower agricultural output, raise prices of agricultural products, and reduce farm income in the short run,” according to USDA economic research. With 57% of farms already operating with negative profit margins as of 2022, additional energy cost pressures could severely impact agricultural viability.

The fundamental question remains whether the EU can or will fulfill these unprecedented energy purchase commitments. With no enforcement mechanisms, binding contracts, or formal tracking systems in place, the agreement resembles previous trade deals that failed to meet targets. The Trump administration’s 2020 trade deal with China serves as a cautionary precedent: China fulfilled only 58% of its purchase commitments despite formal government-to-government agreements.

Unlike that earlier deal, the EU-US agreement relies primarily on voluntary corporate investment decisions rather than government procurement, making verification even more challenging. As energy analysts continue to describe the $750 billion target as “delusional” and “fantastical,” American consumers face the reality that any attempt to meet these goals would likely result in higher domestic energy costs, reduced grid reliability, and increased dependence on fossil fuels, outcomes that contradict stated energy independence and affordability objectives.