While President Trump’s call for energy dominance has historical precedent, what it means for America remains loosely defined.

On the first day of his presidency, President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency, pledging an aggressive push for energy dominance. His action builds on the goal of energy independence that was prevalent since the 1970s oil crisis, but now the ambition goes beyond freeing the United States from foreign oil by leveraging US energy abundance as a strategic asset.

Yet for all the rhetoric, the concept remains loosely defined. Going a step beyond mere self-sufficiency, the administration wants energy to be reliable, affordable, and abundant—and domestically-sourced wherever possible. The following pillars of energy abundance emerge: solidifying American leadership in fossil fuel production and exports, rejuvenating the American nuclear and coal industries, a deregulatory push, securing supply chains, and abandoning the federal pursuit of decarbonization.

These priorities aim toward reducing American dependency on foreign imports, growing the economy, and addressing the rising national debt and budget imbalances.

Dominant in What?

Trump’s vision of energy dominance centers on American strengths: oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. In stark contrast to the 1970s, today, the United States shapes international energy markets as a net exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG) and as a prominent producer of liquids —crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). According to the Texas Oil and Gas Association, in 2024, the U.S. generated as much crude oil and NGLs as it consumed from a volumetric standpoint.

In this area, the United States has achieved its energy independence goals. American producers operate in a robust cost environment: many shale fields remain profitable at oil prices near $70/barrel, enabling their flexibility and competitiveness throughout production cycles. Geopolitically, American LNG exports have undercut Russia’s energy revenues and strengthened its ties with the EU, Japan, South Korea, China, and Turkey, which are major purchasers of American LNG.

Deregulation is another pillar of energy dominance. By lifting permitting hurdles and rolling back environmental regulations, the administration’s goal is to halt the early retirement of coal plants, and accelerate the building of pipeline, other LNG infrastructure, and refining projects. In practice, this involves revisiting aspects of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and easing carbon-capture mandates. This is likely to benefit the coal industry most of all.

Energy dominance also involves resilient supply chains, particularly for critical minerals like lithium, graphite, and rare earths. With China currently dominating the production and processing of these materials, the United States has begun “friend-shoring” (relocating processing to allied nations or domestically) to control the entire energy supply chain from extraction to manufacturing.

Not an “All of the Above” Solution

The administration focuses on energy sources that deliver dispatchable, “always-on” electricity. Besides fossil fuels, conventional nuclear energy, alongside small modular nuclear reactors, is a scalable baseload solution. If the United States successfully exports its domestic nuclear designs, it will forge long-lasting alliances with the recipients of these technologies. These relationships could span a hundred years due to the nuclear plants’ longevity. Support for nuclear power is further fueled by the urgent energy needs of the data center industry. Energy dominance will help the United States maintain its current leadership in the AI race, a position that is constantly challenged by China.

Notably, however, wind and solar have been sidelined in the energy dominance narrative. The first Secretarial Order by Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not address these technologies at all. Despite excellent wind and solar resources in the United States, there has been little federal push to compete with China in renewable hardware or electric vehicle battery supply chains. The United States seems to be at peace with letting China lead the clean energy transition.

President Trump is unapologetic that his energy policy is unconstrained by the greenhouse gas emissions profile of the energy sector. This is a clear break from Joe Biden’s ambitious targets for solar and wind sectors; for example, the prior administration’s thirty gigawatts (GW) target for offshore wind installed capacity by 2030 is now clearly unachievable.

The Gambit for Dominance

Energy dominance isn’t just a slogan. It is a deliberate, multi-layered strategy akin to an industrial policy that emphasizes US market-share expansion and supply chain control. Energy is not merely a commodity, but also a tool of economic statecraft.

True dominance requires long-term investments, sustained international partnerships, a stable business environment with high amounts of certainty in government policy, continued technological leadership, and a non-confrontational trade policy that builds alliances. The United States may gain leverage abroad and cheaper fuel at home, but its current approach increases the risks of isolation and trade conflicts.

Moreover, energy dominance might not mix well with trade tariffs. For example, the US and Canadian electric grids are integrated, and the tariffs might create issues shifting energy across the border.

Still, for now, the US seems to hold a strong hand. It has access to cheap, abundant hydrocarbons and is home to the largest nuclear power plant fleet in the world. Yet energy dominance is not a destination—it is a statement of policy priorities that must continuously adapt to shifting markets and alliances. The current interpretation of energy dominance also leaves out US leadership in clean energy, which might not be the best approach in the long run.

About the Author: Dr. Anna Broughel

Dr. Anna Broughel is a Lecturer in Sustainable Energy Transition Policy at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University and a member of the board of Eesti Energia, an Estonian state-owned utility, and of the United States Association for Energy Economics (USAEE). She worked as an energy economist at Tetra Tech and as a science and technology fellow in the US Department of Energy. She holds a Ph.D. in economics and policy, conferred by the State University of New York in association with Syracuse University.

Image: Shutterstock/Bruce Peter

The post What Does “Energy Dominance” Mean for America? appeared first on The National Interest.