How America’s New Strategy Puts Energy At The Core – OpEd
The recently adopted U.S. National Security Strategy formalizes the shift that was already apparent in reality long before it emerged in doctrine: energy is now viewed as a fundamental component of national power rather than a technical or environmental policy sector. The document's direct language is revealing. Energy is viewed as a strategic asset that is closely linked to supply-chain resilience, military preparedness, economic strength, and geopolitical influence rather than in terms of morality or transformation.
The logic is simple and hierarchical. Energy security sustains economic stability. Economic stability enables military readiness. Military readiness, in turn, preserves geopolitical influence. Remove energy abundance from this sequence, and the entire structure weakens. By explicitly acknowledging this chain, the strategy formalizes what has been evident since the shale revolution: a state that controls its energy base enjoys strategic autonomy.
Building on this foundational logic, the strategy advances three critical implications for policy formation. First, energy policy will increasingly be evaluated through the lens of security and resilience rather than environmental ambition or market efficiency alone. Reliability and control take precedence over optimization. Second, the boundary between domestic energy supply and geopolitical vulnerability becomes the central axis of policy formation. Dependence is no longer viewed as a commercial inconvenience but as a strategic risk. Third, energy exports cease to be neutral economic transactions and instead become instruments of alliance cohesion and geopolitical leverage.
These implications naturally establish a clear hierarchy of priorities within the strategy itself. Energy availability is placed above ideological transition goals. The reasoning is blunt: energy scarcity constrains growth, undermines industrial capacity, weakens technological competitiveness, and limits strategic flexibility. A state that cannot reliably power its economy cannot sustain military strength or global influence. Abundant and affordable energy thus becomes the precondition for all other policy objectives.
This hierarchical framework, in turn, shapes how the energy sector itself must evolve. Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power are retained as complementary pillars of a stable system. Technological change is not rejected, but it is sequenced. Innovation is adopted where it strengthens reliability, not where it introduces fragility. Energy-intensive sectors, especially artificial intelligence and advanced computing, are treated as strategic assets whose development depends directly on energy abundance.
Fortunately, the United States enters this strategic recalibration from a position of considerable strength. Over the past decade, the country has consolidated its status as the world's leading producer of both oil and natural gas, a result of the shale revolution and sustained private-sector investment. Since 2020, the production of natural gas has steadied at historically high levels, driven primarily by shale gas, which currently makes up approximately 79 percent of total marketed production. Meanwhile, the output of crude oil has continued to climb. Notably, the United States oil production has been rised from about 9.3 million barrels per day then to an annual average of 13.3 million barrels per day in 2024. The fact that tight (shale) oil sources currently account for about 64 percent of this output highlights the long-lasting effects of the shale revolution. This manufacturing base has enabled the United States to transition from a state of structural energy vulnerability to one of strategic flexibility. The nation still imports some grades of crude oil, but this is more due to commercial efficiency than geopolitical need. This distinction is crucial from a realist standpoint: vulnerability has decreased to the point where strategic options are no longer limited by energy supply.
Natural gas production illustrates the magnitude of this transformation most vividly. Since 2020, output has remained at historically high levels, driven primarily by shale gas, which now accounts for approximately 79 percent of total marketed production. After expanding at an average annual rate of about 4 percent through 2023, production stabilized in 2024 at roughly 1,040 billion cubic meters. The Marcellus Basin alone contributes nearly one-third of national shale gas output, underscoring the concentration and efficiency of the U.S. production base. This scale has enabled the United States to emerge as one of the world's leading exporters of liquefied natural gas, transforming gas exports from a commercial activity into a strategic instrument.
The strategic implications of this production capacity extend well beyond domestic supply. The United States has become an essential supplier to allied economies, particularly in Europe and East Asia, due to the swift growth of LNG exports. American LNG has served as a stabilizing factor that reduced adversary leverage and strengthened alliance cohesion in the context of recent geopolitical upheavals. Energy exports have thus evolved into a non-military extension of U.S. strategic influence, demonstrating how production strength translates directly into geopolitical leverage.
While oil and gas anchor this energy framework, other sources play complementary but essential roles. Coal and nuclear energy occupy an important, though secondary, position within the broader strategy. Since 2008, coal production has decreased by almost half, reaching 510 million short tons in 2024. This decline reflects fundamental economic factors rather than policy alone. However, the new strategy redefines coal as a reserve asset that can maintain grid dependability during times of stress rather than treating it merely as a legacy fuel. Similarly, nuclear energy is reassessed not from an environmental perspective but as a source of baseload stability, technological leadership, and strategic competition with rival exporters. Rather than driving expansion, both sectors now primarily support system resilience.
Taken together, these dynamics reveal clear hierarchies within the U.S. energy mix. Oil and natural gas remain the backbone of the system, not only because of their scale, but because of their reliability and geopolitical utility. Coal and nuclear power function as stabilizing reserves, reinforcing redundancy and resilience. This hierarchy reflects a deliberate prioritization of security and control over ideological consistency.
Alongside this fossil-based foundation, renewable energy has expanded rapidly, though its strategic role remains more limited. Solar power plants increased notably from 27.4 GW in 2023 to 39.6 GW in 2024. Currently, there are around 220 GW of installed solar capacity, which provides more than 7% of the electricity generated in the United States. Battery storage has become a vital supplement, almost doubling in a single year to reach 29 GW of installed capacity, with projections of an additional 47% growth by 2025. These advancements support grid stability and lessen intermittency in the face of growing electrical demand.
However, recent trends in wind deployment illustrate the practical constraints on renewable expansion. In 2024, only 5.3 GW of new wind power was added, significantly less than prior installation rates. Deployment has been hindered by supply-chain bottlenecks, financial limitations, and protracted interconnection schedules, with investment increasingly shifting from creating new projects to repowering existing facilities. Despite these challenges, renewables contributed to almost 90% of new generation capacity increases in 2024, and the total contribution of wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and battery storage reached around 30% of large-scale generating capacity. Overall, over 44% of electricity was generated from carbon-free sources, with renewable energy sources accounting for over 25%.
Against this production backdrop, the new U.S. National Security Strategy marks a transition from assessment to execution. Rather than treating energy as a supporting policy area, the strategy places it at the center of economic stability, industrial resilience, and long-term national planning. The stated goal is the development of an energy sector that is innovative, productive, and capable of sustaining domestic prosperity while remaining globally competitive.
Central to this execution is a systematic reduction of structural dependencies. The strategy argues that a state should not depend on outside parties for resources necessary for its economy or military, drawing on early American economic theory connected to Alexander Hamilton. In practical terms, this means expanding domestic access to critical minerals, energy components, and industrial materials, while limiting exposure to coercive or non-transparent supply chains. The emphasis on monitoring global supply chains and technological developments reflects a preventive approach: vulnerabilities are to be identified and addressed before they become crises. This is not a rejection of international trade, but a recalibration aimed at reliability and continuity.
Within this framework of reduced dependence, energy abundance explicitly takes precedence over transition timelines. Nuclear power, coal, oil, and natural gas are viewed as complementing elements of a stable energy system. The strategy makes a clear connection between accessible and affordable energy and the recovery of domestic manufacturing, lower consumer costs, and job creation. Technological competitiveness is also correlated with energy availability, especially in energy-intensive industries like artificial intelligence and advanced computing. Energy exports appear as a way of bolstering alliances through dependable supply, especially with nations pursuing long-term energy security, rather than as tools of coercion.
This prioritization reflects, in part, lessons drawn from recent international experience. The strategy's rejection of strict "Net Zero" frameworks stems from concerns that abrupt or uneven transitions may increase dependencies instead of reducing them. The recent experience in Europe, where supply constraints and price volatility exposed structural flaws, serves as a cautionary example. The U.S. strategy, by contrast, emphasizes sequencing and balance, maintaining production capacity while continuously incorporating new technologies where they strengthen system stability.
This energy-first approach carries significant implications for U.S. regional engagement, particularly in the Middle East. What is changing is not the region's importance, but the method of involvement. The policy emphasizes more durable forms of engagement based on long-term investment, technology partnerships, and economic cooperation rather than solely depending on security-driven or crisis-oriented measures. Sectors including advanced manufacturing, digital infrastructure, civilian nuclear energy, and defense-related enterprises are increasingly seen as platforms for ongoing engagement rather than tools of leverage. More broadly, this strategy represents a move toward practical connections that respect regional political, social, and historical contexts, avoiding the assumption that stability can be achieved through exporting foreign models of governance or social organization.
A parallel shift is unfolding in U.S. engagement with Africa. The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy signals a clear departure from an aid-centered framework toward a model based on trade, investment, and strategic resource alignment, with energy at its core. By redefining African states as economic and strategic partners rather than recipients of assistance, the strategy elevates oil, gas, and LNG from development sectors to geopolitical assets, linking African energy production directly to U.S. goals of supply-chain resilience, energy abundance, and global influence. This approach creates space for increased U.S. private-sector investment in African hydrocarbons at a time when traditional financing is constrained, while also positioning American involvement as a counterweight to competing external actors. The emphasis on conflict mediation and political stability reflects a recognition that investment follows security. In this framework, African energy resources become not only engines of domestic growth but components of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at securing critical resources, shaping global energy markets, and anchoring long-term partnerships built on mutual strategic interest rather than dependency.
In sum, the new National Security Strategy reflects a fundamental reorientation toward energy abundance as a policy anchor. The focus is not on asserting influence for its own sake, but on ensuring that the United States has sufficient, affordable, and reliable energy to support its economy, protect its infrastructure, and reduce external vulnerabilities. At the same time, the strategy emphasizes cooperation through trade, investment, and shared interests, particularly in regions that remain central to global energy flows. By prioritizing domestic resilience while remaining open to partnership, the approach seeks to place American stability first without closing the door to constructive engagement with the wider international system.