A Second Trump Presidency Could Shift Focus Away from IEA’s Green Initiatives, Advisers Warn

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON – Should Donald Trump win the upcoming U.S. presidential election, he is expected to seek a change in leadership at the International Energy Agency (IEA) to shift its focus back towards maximizing fossil fuel production rather than prioritizing climate change initiatives, according to sources familiar with his views.

The IEA, based in Paris, has provided crucial research and data to developed nations for over fifty years, assisting in energy security, supply, and investment policy decisions. The United States contributes approximately 25% of the IEA’s funding.

In recent years, the organization’s focus has shifted from solely oil and gas supply towards promoting clean energy. This adaptation has been driven by member countries aiming to achieve their climate goals set forth in the Paris Agreement, aiming to move away from dependency on fossil fuels. This transition accelerated during President Joe Biden’s administration, leading to energy policies that have provoked dissatisfaction among global oil producers like Saudi Arabia, conflicting with Trump’s "drill, baby, drill" energy approach aimed at bolstering the traditional fossil fuel sectors.

Conversations with several individuals familiar with Trump’s energy philosophy—including donors, policy advisors, and former officials from his administration—indicate that the former president would likely exert pressure on the IEA to realign its focus with pro-fossil fuel policies in the event of his re-election.

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comments regarding the IEA. So far, Trump has remained silent on the subject.

Experts from the Heritage Foundation, which has developed a policy plan for a potential new Republican administration and maintains regular communication with the Trump campaign, have suggested a strategy for the U.S. to use its influence within the IEA to promote a change in leadership, specifically targeting the current director, Fatih Birol.

"The U.S. should definitely formulate a strategy to replace the leadership at the IEA," stated Mario Loyola, a senior research fellow at Heritage, criticizing Birol’s approach as being focused on "net-zero emissions fairytales" while fossil fuel demand continues to rise.

While the IEA’s director is chosen by member nations, the United States wields considerable influence due to its financial contributions and geopolitical stature. The IEA comprises 30 member countries, primarily from Europe, but also includes Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.

Should Trump advocate for a renewed emphasis on fossil fuels within the IEA, it would stand in opposition to the energy policies endorsed by the European Union and other significant IEA members.

A hypothetical Trump administration might prioritize other energy policy challenges initially, such as lifting the Biden administration’s moratorium on liquefied natural gas export licenses, increasing domestic drilling, or even withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, according to Heritage fellow Mike McKenna, a former advisor to Trump on energy policy.

"I could see it being a year-two focus to change leadership at the IEA," he remarked.

During his presidency, Trump considered reducing U.S. financial support for the IEA but ultimately decided against it due to its relatively modest cost, as noted by Dave Banks, who served as a special assistant for international energy and environment at the National Security Council during Trump’s time in office. The U.S. contributes roughly $6 million annually to the IEA.

However, circumstances could shift if Trump returns to the presidency. "There is a sentiment among Republicans that the IEA is predominantly guided by European interests, aligning with Democratic priorities," Banks added.

Since Birol’s appointment as director in 2015, he has emphasized the importance of combating climate change within the agency’s analyses. The IEA has forecasted that global oil demand will peak by the end of this decade. Shortly after Biden’s inauguration in 2021, the IEA released a report advocating for a rapid end to new drilling investments to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.

Notably, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which includes Saudi Arabia and other major oil-producing nations, has often clashed with the IEA and has accused it of unfairly portraying oil producers.

Birol’s pivot towards green energy has drawn criticism from Republican lawmakers, who argue the IEA has aligned too closely with Biden’s agenda, with some claiming it has transformed into an "energy transition cheerleader."

John Kerry, formerly Biden’s top climate envoy, stated that the administration relied heavily on the IEA’s modeling and analysis to craft its decarbonization policies for the U.S. economy by 2050, defending the agency against claims of ideological bias.

Birol defended the IEA’s independent analyses, stating that its scenarios are derived from thorough and objective research grounded in the most up-to-date data on market conditions, policies, and technology costs.

If Trump were to reclaim the presidency, however, the IEA may face significant pressure to revert to its foundational emphasis on fossil fuel supply.

"I strongly expect that if President Trump wins, the U.S. will leverage its position within the IEA, in collaboration with like-minded members such as Japan, to restore the agency’s historical role as an objective, non-political security watchdog focused on energy analysis and forecasting," remarked Bob McNally, president of the consultancy Rapidan Energy.

Dan Eberhart, a Trump campaign contributor and CEO of a drilling firm, emphasized that the situation is largely one of perspective. "Trump’s priority has always been energy security for the U.S.," he said. "If the IEA’s activities hinder necessary investments in traditional energy development, Trump is likely to perceive that as a threat to America’s economic and national security."