President Donald Trump’s Cabinet officials are scheduling their first formal calls with oil company CEOs to press them to revive Venezuela’s flagging oil production, four people familiar with the conversations told POLITICO. Calls that Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are planning with chief executives represent some of the first official outreach that the administration has made to the U.S. companies after months of informal discussions with people in the sector, these people said — days after President Donald Trump told reporters that “our very large United States oil companies” will “spend billions of dollars” in Venezuela. However, the companies’ executives remain wary of entering a socialist-ruled country that was plunged into political upheaval after U.S. forces took strongman Nicolás Maduro into custody over the weekend, following decades of neglect in its nationalized oil fields, according to market analysts and industry officials. Industry officials are also discussing what types of incentives would be needed to get them to return to the country, according to two industry officials familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Those could include having the U.S. government signing contracts guaranteeing payment and security or forming public-private joint ventures. Even if they don’t yet have fully formed ideas for what would get them to invest in Venezuela, Trump’s insistence is difficult to ignore, said one former administration agency head who was granted anonymity to discuss the evolving matters. “Most companies have been thinking about this for a while. All of the big folks are probably thinking about it — and very, very, very hard,” the person said. “It’s a pretty powerful thing when the president of the United States says, ‘I need you to do this.’” Publicly, the White House expressed confidence. “All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “American oil companies will do an incredible job for the people of Venezuela and will represent the United States well.” One person said the administration also “hopes” the American Petroleum Institute, the powerful trade association representing oil companies working in the United States, would form a task force to advise the White House on how best to revive Venezuelan oil production. “In nearly all cases, these calls are the first outreach from the administration on Venezuela,” the person said. API is “closely watching developments involving Venezuela and any potential implications for global energy markets,” group spokesperson Justin Prendergast said in response to questions. “Events like this underscore the importance of strong U.S. energy leadership. Globally, energy companies make investment decisions based on stability, the rule of law, market forces and long-term operational considerations,” Prendergast said. Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had spoken to U.S. oil companies “before and after” the military operation that seized Maduro and brought him to New York, where the former Venezuelan leader made his first court appearance on Monday. “And they want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they’re going to represent us well,” Trump continued. Industry executives on Monday told Reuters no such outreach had occurred to oil majors Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, all of which have experience working in Venezuela’s oil fields. Bringing Venezuela’s oil production — now around 1 million barrels a day — back to its glory-days’ height of 3 million barrels a day would require at least $183 billion and more than a decade of effort, industry analyst firm Rystad Energy said Monday. While the Venezuelan government might supply some of that money, international companies would need to spend $35 billion in the next few years to reach that goal. “Rystad Energy believes that around $53 billion of oil and gas upstream and infrastructure investment is needed over the next 15 years just to keep Venezuela’s crude oil production flat at 1.1 million” barrels a day, the firm said in a client note. “Going beyond 1.4 million [barrels a day] is possible but would require a stable investment of $8 [billion]-$9 billion per year from 2026 to 2040, on top of ‘hold-flat’ capital requirements.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that it would be “premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” but said the company is monitoring the “potential implications for global energy supply and stability” from the events in Venezuela. ConocoPhillips is continuing its efforts to collect more than $10 billion in compensation it was awarded in arbitration for the Venezuelan government’s seizure of the company’s assets in 2007, Nuss said. Exxon Mobil and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment. Oil field services companies Halliburton and Baker Hughes did not respond for comment, and SLB declined to comment. The only company to publicly indicate interest in Venezuela has been Continental Resources, a firm led by Trump ally and informal energy adviser Harold Hamm. Hamm told the Financial Times on Sunday that “with improved regulatory and governmental stability we would definitely consider future investment.” Continental, which played a key role in developing oil fracking technology, has never operated outside the United States — though it announced on Monday a deal in which it would buy assets in Argentina. People in the oil industry have said a major concern is that Venezuela is not stable enough to guarantee the safety of any workers and equipment they might send there. Companies are asking that the U.S. government contract directly with them before they commit to entering the country. “We need some boots-on-the-ground security and some financial security. That’s on top of the list,” said a second industry executive familiar with the talks who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump’s decision to allow Maduro’s second-in-command, acting President Delcy Rodríguez, and other members of the regime to remain in charge of the country’s government has also made industry executives wary of taking on the job, this person added. Rodríguez and her family had been part of the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez in the mid-2000s when the regime seized the assets of foreign oil companies. Colombia, Canada, the EU and the United States have levied sanctions against her after accusing her of undermining the Venezuelan elections. “Who’s running the game here?” the second industry executive said. “If she’s going to be in charge — plus the guys who have been there all along — what guarantee can you give us that stuff is going to change? Those three issues — physical, financial and political security — have to be settled before anyone goes in.” Longtime Republican foreign policy hand Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela during his first term, said the president is “exaggerating” the likelihood that companies will return to the country, given the risk and capital required. “The president seems to suggest that he will make the decision, but that is not right — the boards of these companies will make the decisions,” said Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I expect that you’ll see all of them now say, ‘This is fantastic, it’s a great opportunity, and we have a team ready to go to Venezuela,’ but that’s politics,” he added. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to invest.”

European companies are still paying vastly more for energy than they would in the U.S. or China, a new analysis has found, a year after a landmark report warned inaction would condemn the continent to economic stagnation. The findings come on the anniversary of the publication of a report by former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi, which found the EU was lagging behind rivals as a result of expensive power and gas, hampering firms’ competitiveness internationally. According to the new findings from the influential Center for the Study of Democracy think tank, set to be unveiled Tuesday in Washington, European countries have become more exposed to energy price shocks, with indicators surging more than fivefold in the past three years. “A year after Draghi called for stronger EU energy markets, our data shows affordability risks remain high, with retail prices still 40–70 percent above pre-crisis levels in much of Central and Eastern Europe,” said Martin Vladimirov, one of the report’s authors. Affordability is now by far the greatest threat to the EU’s energy resilience, outstripping the uncertainty created by Russia’s weaponizing of energy flows, by the climate transition and by system reliability. “It affects not only citizens’ trust, but also the capacity of businesses to compete globally,” the Center for the Study of Democracy assessment cautions. “For Europe to succeed in the next phase of its energy transition, it must ensure that clean energy is not only available, but accessible and economically viable for all.” Vulnerabilities in one domain also risk spilling over into others, adding to the major and often historical divides that already exist between EU countries, the report cautions. If the bloc fails to address the gulf between countries’ energy security, it threatens to entrench regional inequality and undermine its economic sovereignty and climate goals, it warns. In his report last September, Draghi wrote that “EU companies still face electricity prices that are 2-3 times those in the US. Natural gas prices paid are 4-5 times higher. This price gap is primarily driven by Europe’s lack of natural resources, but also by fundamental issues with our common energy market.” One key recommendation was a massive program of state and private investment in aging power grids, which experts warn are inefficient and a key source of extra costs. His inquiry called for €584 billion in additional funds for electricity infrastructure by 2030, and up to €2.29 trillion by 2050. It is unclear how much of that funding will be made available, but EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen has been tasked with planning an overhaul of Europe’s grids, to be presented later this year. However, one source of reassurance for officials will be the declining levels of exposure to geopolitical risk after efforts to diversify away from Russian oil and gas. Jørgensen has presided over the introduction of a new plan to phase out imports from the country by 2028, with new suppliers ramping up production to meet demand.

France and Germany on Friday agreed to better integrate their energy markets and find common ground on EU green laws as part of a sweeping bilateral reset following years of bitter feuding over energy policy. The EU’s two biggest economies gave their political backing to a new cross-border power line and the long-stalled “Southwestern” hydrogen pipeline network connecting Spain, Portugal, France and Germany at a ministerial meeting in Toulon, also attended by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The summit comes after years of friction between the countries over energy policy, including regarding subsidies for energy-intensive industries and nuclear power. Now, an agreement at the 25th Franco-German Council of Ministers “seeks to reconcile policy differences and promote joint initiatives that can serve as a model for broader EU collaboration,” according to a press release. The new “economic agenda” — spanning defense, industrial and digital policy — includes a pledge to conduct a joint study with Poland by 2026 on optimizing grid investments, and collaborate more closely on electricity-related rules such as network charges in order to lower energy prices. Notably, the two capitals also vowed to “establish a cooperative working process” on efforts to slash red tape for businesses and align their climate policies. In practice, that “might” lead to joint proposals to amend existing EU energy laws, the statement continued. It also addresses upcoming legal targets for 2040 that promote “non-discrimination among all … low-carbon energy technologies” — a common euphemism for nuclear power. France, which relies heavily on atomic energy, has long fought for nuclear to take a more prominent role in EU climate goals. In recent months, Paris pushed Brussels to adopt a renewables target for 2040 that also includes nuclear — an effort EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen has so far resisted.

Oil prices surged Sunday evening to the highest levels since President Donald Trump returned to office as energy markets digested the U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities — and the risk that Tehran may try to disrupt the flow of crude oil out of the Middle East. U.S. crude oil futures rallied more than 6 percent to peak at $78 a barrel, more than $1 higher than the price on Jan. 20 when Trump was inaugurated. That jump is likely to filter through to gasoline prices just as drivers prepare to hit the road for the long July 4 weekend next week. Trump had campaigned on promises to lower consumer energy prices as part of his “energy dominance” agenda, but the current average pump price of nearly $3.22 a gallon for regular gasoline is about 10 cents above the price when he was inaugurated — and likely to climb this week. How much higher oil prices might go now depends on how Tehran responds to the attacks. Iran’s parliament’s voted to close the Strait Of Hormuz, the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf where a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil passes, but only an appointee of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei can make that determination. Even if that were to happen, the impact on the oil market would depend on whether Iran and its allies are satisfied harassing the oil tankers traversing Hormuz or resort to a full-scale campaign to block traffic altogether. Reports that the White House gave Iran a head’s up on the bombings and said there wouldn’t be more to follow suggests the Trump administration is trying to avoid a full-scale war — and helping to keep oil prices in check. Energy analysts have said a disruption in the shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz could send oil prices above $100 a barrel. “This choreography underscores that both sides want to calibrate this crisis, not lose control of it,” said Scott Modell, chief executive officer at energy and geopolitics analysis firm Rapidan Energy Group. “We expect Iran’s response to be stage-managed: think harassment of commercial shipping, symbolic seizures of tankers, and limited rocket fire on US military outposts — but not a full-scale campaign to choke energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.” Some market analysts are confident that even if the fighting does escalate, the United States, OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia and other suppliers will have enough product to meet demand. But others are warning that a price increase may have only just begun. “True, these oil market dynamics indicate that investors have incorporated a greater risk premium to account for the increased probability of an oil supply shock,” BCA Research analyst Roukaya Ibrahim said in a note. “Yet the more important question is whether this pricing adequately reflects the level of risk. Our sense is that crude price pressures will remain tilted to the upside over the near term.”

KANANASKIS, Alberta — The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself. “Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU. They pledged to “remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.” The statement came as U.S. President Donald Trump left the G7 meeting in Kananaskis, Canada, saying he needed to focus on the spiraling crisis in the Middle East, where Israel and Iran have exchanged fire for days. Before leaving Canada, Trump said in a cryptic social media post that “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump wants to beat China in just about every market — but he’d rather take the loss on clean energy. In his second term, the U.S. president has returned more committed than ever to promoting fossil fuels and crushing clean, renewable power sources that don’t burn the planet. Trump’s view is that China has already won the clean energy race, due in part to practices such as forced labor, massive subsidies and intellectual property theft. Trying to compete with Beijing would just make the United States the loser. The president wants the U.S. to focus on energy sources it already dominates, including oil, natural gas and coal. That represents a complete break from Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, who sought to go toe-to-toe with China in a race for clean energy dominance. Not only that, it contrasts with Trump’s first term, when the White House took an all-you-can-eat-buffet approach to energy and clean power.  The new stance could present America’s competitors with a multibillion-dollar opportunity. And in Washington, it’s opening up a fundamental divide within Trump’s Republican Party as it works through spending talks. “The second administration is really not about taking half-measures,” said Daniel Simmons, who ran the Energy Department’s energy efficiency and renewable energy office in Trump’s first term. “To all appearances, it is not a battlefield that they care about.” GOP FISSURES Not all Republicans are ready to let China, Europe and other nations win the clean energy race by default.  That intra-GOP division is boiling underneath one of the biggest political controversies in Washington right now: the complicated passage of Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax and spending megabill. Hard-line conservatives are demanding that the bill include a wholesale gutting of hundreds of billions of dollars in Biden-era clean energy tax incentives, which were aimed at juicing U.S. competitors to Chinese and European manufacturers.  That push threatens to alienate moderate Republicans whose communities stand to gain from factories and other projects enabled by the tax breaks — and who had hoped they could win Trump to their side by framing the incentives as the key to edging out China. The message they’ve gotten instead: When it comes to winning on clean energy, Trump just isn’t interested. Trump’s Energy Department confirmed as much in a statement to POLITICO that focused largely on oil — an energy source that the U.S. produces more of than any other country. Trump officials have argued that putting any money into green technology boosts China, which dominates major slices of the global battery, electric vehicle, solar and wind energy supply chains. | Olivier Matthys/EFE via EPA “Thanks to President Trump, America is leading the way in lowering costs by removing red tape and unleashing affordable, abundant, and reliable American energy,” the department said Friday. “As the world’s largest oil producer, the United States welcomes a secure and stable global supply of oil that promotes economic prosperity at home and promotes peace and stability around the world.” The White House referred questions about its clean energy worldview to the Energy Department. DRILLING TO BEAT CHINA? Trump officials have argued that putting any money into green technology boosts China, which dominates major slices of the global battery, electric vehicle, solar and wind energy supply chains.  Trump’s zero-sum assessment of the clean energy market has forged an energy strategy even more reliant on fossil fuels than he pursued in his first term. Following this approach would jeopardize a U.S. clean energy manufacturing industry that is just beginning to sprout — and, green tech advocates say, all but ensure that China will command the global sector. That vision is coming to a head in Congress, where Republicans are working to slash the clean energy incentives created by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. While not proposing to erase the tax breaks altogether, GOP lawmakers in the House have floated tight restrictions outlawing Chinese sourcing in the supply chains of energy projects. Those limits would render most of the tax credits unusable for projects that have not yet been built, effectively squelching the nascent U.S. clean manufacturing sector. The changes remain in limbo as part of the broader budget reconciliation bill, the legislative vehicle for green-lighting Republicans’ and Trump’s policy agenda that can pass with a simple majority vote in Congress. House Republicans are trying to forge a compromise among fiscal conservatives and blocs of GOP lawmakers that want to preserve clean energy credits and raise tax deduction caps for state and local taxes.    Trump’s presence looms over the negotiations. He has repeatedly vowed to end Biden’s programs — the nation’s largest-ever investment in clean energy and fighting climate change — while labeling them the “green new scam.” Cutting many of those policies, such as consumer credits to purchase electric vehicles, would fund a small portion of his administration’s other priorities, including trillions of dollars in tax breaks. “They don’t see climate change as a problem,” George David Banks, who ran Trump’s first-term climate portfolio, said of the current team’s outlook. He added: “They don’t want to essentially create a jobs program for China.” Defenders of the IRA tax credits say wiping them out would wipe out an American jobs program, one whose benefits would flow to heavily Republican communities as well as Democratic strongholds. Private sector manufacturing projects seizing on Biden’s incentives had been projected to create roughly 160,000 jobs, according to analyses published late last year. Overturning the subsidies would eliminate a potential U.S. export market for solar modules and batteries that could be worth as much as $50 billion by 2030, according to another analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. Other countries would fill an $80 billion investment gap left by shuttered U.S. solar facilities, electric vehicle shops and battery gigafactories.  Many countries stand to benefit from the U.S. vacating the space, the Johns Hopkins researchers wrote. But governments outside the U.S. would face risks as well: Those that fail to encourage cleantech investments at home may fall even further behind China, which would likely benefit in every industrial category.  The researchers also raised the prospect of a transition of intellectual property to China. As U.S. businesses shuttered, they said, foreign companies could purchase their technical knowledge at fire-sale prices. Donald Trump’s barrage of tariffs against nations worldwide would limit some of the advantage countries could gain by selling clean technology to the U.S., said Tim Sahay, one of the authors of the study. | Jim Lo Scalzo/EFE via EPA Trump’s barrage of tariffs against nations worldwide would limit some of the advantage countries could gain by selling clean technology to the U.S., said Tim Sahay, one of the authors of the study. Still, he said, the upshot from Trump’s policies was clear — including for European allies that had erupted in fury over Biden’s use of protectionist tax breaks to move clean energy manufacturing to the United States.  “China would be the biggest winner, but not the only winner … The rest of the world wins,” Sahay said. It’s “basically the IRA in reverse. When the IRA passed, foreigners were like, ‘Oh my God, Americans are stealing our jobs and investments because of their superior fiscal space.’ Well, now the IRA is gone, then foreigners are like, ‘Well, more for us.’” Some conservative clean energy supporters still hope they can persuade Trump to back tax credits that have yielded solar manufacturing and battery-making plants across Republican strongholds in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt.  Those advocates criticized the IRA for being too lenient in allowing Chinese content into the supply chains of products receiving the tax incentives. But they believe Trump would bless tweaks that tighten foreign content requirements to retain incentives that support blue-collar jobs in the U.S. “There’s an enormous and rapidly growing market for low-carbon technologies around the world, and right now the U.S. is a secondary player,” said Greg Bertelsen, CEO of the Cleaner Economy Coalition, a business advocacy organization that promotes low-carbon manufacturing at the state and federal level. “There’s a recognition within the Trump administration that we need to be competing in these markets for these technologies.” TRUMPISM ON THE ROAD Trump officials have been making a very different case. Last month, Energy Secretary Chris Wright flew to Eastern Europe to propose that ministers from Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and other regional governments join “Team Energy Freedom,” urging them to embrace oil, gas and nuclear energy and reject what he framed as climate dogma.  “Climate alarmism has reduced freedom, prosperity and national security,” he said, adding — in language that carried a particular charge addressed to former communist bloc countries — that it may be a Trojan horse to “grow centralization and re-establish top-down control.” Wright’s subordinate, Tommy Joyce, was even more blunt in telling a gathering of 60 governments in London last month that the pursuit of climate policy was a gift to Beijing. “There are no wind turbines without concessions to or coercion from China,” he said. People outside the MAGA world also acknowledge the dominance China has built over decades of developing its clean energy supply chains.  In solar, batteries, electric vehicles and to some extent wind power, “China started early. China is the biggest,” said Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute. In solar, batteries, electric vehicles and to some extent wind power, “China started early. China is the biggest,” said Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute. | Wu Hao/EFE via EPA These are the core clean technologies the world is going to need en masse in the coming decades as it shifts toward a cleaner energy system. And in all of these fields, Li said, “the Chinese lead is significant and irreversible.”  In the past months, for example, two rival Chinese companies — BYD and CATL — made potentially game-changing claims in announcing they had developed electric vehicle batteries that could get 400 or even 500 kilometers (roughly 250 to 310 miles) from just a five-minute charge. By contrast, Tesla boasts that its “superchargers” can give drivers around 320 kilometers in about 15 minutes.  Republican proposals would also hamstring some clean energy technologies that the Trump administration has touted, such as next-generation nuclear, fusion and geothermal power, according to an analysis by the research firm Rhodium Group. The proposed tweaks to subsidies would essentially eliminate the long-term price signals that early-stage technologies covet, eroding their business case. Beyond that, the administration’s massive spending and job cuts across federal agencies and science research threaten to constrain U.S. innovation.  Rather than focusing on clean energy technologies such as batteries and EVs, the Trump administration has so far made critical minerals the forefront of its strategy to combat China, said a State Department official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media. Those efforts focus on extracting and processing raw materials rather than supporting value-added industries like battery-making or electric vehicles.  The official said the administration’s opposition to subsidies for green technology doesn’t mean it opposes the technologies writ large — apart from wind energy, which Trump has made clear for years that he despises. AMERICA ALONE Apart from the current U.S. government, no other major power has determined that China’s dominance means that action to fight climate change needs to take a back seat. The Biden administration’s argument, one still being pursued in Europe, was that a targeted industrial strategy could claw back some share of those industries. Those strategies have often come cloaked in pledges to make this country or that country a “clean energy superpower.” But Li said there was a danger of “making too big of a promise. A promise that cannot be entirely fulfilled.”  Li said he had long feared that a U.S. president would someday ask: If China’s lead is so big, “then why do we play the game?” That is the conclusion being drawn in the White House during Trump’s second term. And it helps explain why the administration has broken so radically with past U.S. policy, shut down government funding for future projects, kneecapped agencies that deal with clean energy, and reversed regulations. “What has surprised me is the extent to which the administration hasn’t just pursued an agenda but has thrown sand in the gears of the parts of the agenda that they don’t agree with,” said Thom Woodroofe, a former Australian diplomat in Washington who now works at the Smart Energy Council. “Even when it costs American jobs.” Zack Colman reported from Washington and Karl Mathiesen reported from London.

Spain and Portugal lost power Monday in a massive blackout, according to the Spanish grid operator. Blackouts were reported from Madrid to Lisbon, with large parts of the Iberian Peninsula without power as of late morning Monday. In a statement on X, Spanish transmission system operator Red Eléctrica, which manages the flow of electricity at the national level, said that protocols had been activated to “restore electricity supply in collaboration with sector companies following the blackout that occurred in the peninsular system.” “The causes are being analyzed, and all resources are being dedicated to resolving it,” the operator said. Traffic lights blinked off and metro systems ground to a halt across Spain and Portugal as the flow of power was abruptly cut around 12:30 p.m. Although both countries’ hospitals are equipped with generators, authorities indicated that staff had been asked to turn off computers and take other steps to conserve power because it’s unknown how long the blackout could last.  Spanish authorities asked residents not to call emergency services for information, warning that telephone centers were already being overwhelmed with calls. This story is being updated.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Kaum oder kein Wachstum – und kaum Hoffnung auf Besserung. Die Wirtschaftsweise Veronika Grimm erklärt, warum die strukturelle Krise in Deutschland längst vor Ukrainekrieg und Energiepreisschock begann. Sie spricht über fehlende Steuerreformen, bürokratische Bremsen, verpasste Chancen bei Digitalisierung, Bildung und KI – und warum die Bundesrepublik Gefahr läuft, wirtschaftlich den Anschluss zu verlieren. Ein Gespräch über den deutschen Standort, grüne Illusionen und den gefährlichen Mythos vom „Wirtschaftswunder 2.0“. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

LONDON — Trump administration officials are attempting to block the world’s most important energy research agency from producing data that the U.S. government argues favors renewable power over fossil fuels. At recent meetings of the International Energy Agency, U.S. officials pushed the body, which publishes influential energy market forecasts, to cease its work promoting the global shift to clean power and net-zero carbon emissions, according to two people briefed on the discussions. Tommy Joyce, a Trump supporter who is acting assistant secretary of international affairs at the U.S. Energy Department, has pushed for the organization to go “back to basics” during the closed meetings, said one of the people.  Irked European officials pushed back against the U.S. pressure, defending the agency’s efforts on clean power research.  “At the board meetings of the IEA … the U.S. have been really unconstructive,” said a European official not directly involved in the talks but who was briefed on their contents. That included discouraging any project “that is not about fossil fuels.” A second person also briefed on the meetings confirmed the account. The IEA’s work is crucial for both clean energy advocates and American fossil fuel boosters, as the agency’s reports are considered the gold standard in global energy data, guiding major investments and government policies.  The Trump administration’s IEA efforts are the latest salvo in its broader campaign to reshape the inner workings of government both domestically and, increasingly, internationally. This week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent placed similar pressure on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to drop climate support. Tensions over the IEA are likely to flare even hotter on Thursday and Friday as Trump officials are in London for a two-day summit hosted by the agency.  ‘WEAKEN OR DISABLE’ The European official described the U.S. attitude as “let’s weaken or disable the IEA unless they’re working on our values — which is the same approach that they’ve taken to every other international organization.” A French official told reporters on Wednesday that “the Trump administration clearly expressed its desire for the IEA to distance itself from this agenda.” The officials were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic negotiations.  In the meetings, European countries have backed the IEA’s clean energy research. “Decarbonization is both an objective and a tool” of energy security, the French official said. “This corresponds to the French position, and we have no fear that the IEA will change its position.” In careful opening remarks at the London summit on Thursday, Fatih Birol avoided mentioning climate change and emphasized the necessary role of oil and gas as the world moved increasingly to clean energy. | Pool photo by Justin Tallis via AFP/Getty Images “It is for the rest of the OECD countries to make sure that they don’t completely debilitate an organization which is the organ of record really on energy data and data for the transition,” the European official said, referencing the global trade-promoting Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  While slamming renewables, Joyce has pressed for cooperation on nuclear energy, geothermal and critical mineral supplies, said one of those briefed on the meetings. The White House declined to comment. The U.S. Energy Department did not respond to an interview request. In an emailed statement, the IEA said: “The IEA Secretariat’s current programme of work is based on the mandates from our Member countries, as agreed at our last Ministerial in February 2024. The IEA Secretariat will continue to take into account feedback from all 32 Member countries on their priorities for the Agency going forward.” Headquartered in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the IEA was created following the 1973 oil crisis to act as a buffer against energy shocks. In 2019, after a sustained campaign by environmentalists, the agency shifted its focus to researching and actively supporting global efforts to avoid disastrous and extreme global warming. That elevated the agency’s chief, Turkish energy expert Fatih Birol, to a role as one of the chief spokespeople for the green transition, supported by the agency’s formidable army of energy experts and modelers. Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, a Brazilian official said the “International Energy Agency has been quite extraordinary in pointing directions and showing impressive statistics and tendencies that are influencing considerably the negotiation.” ‘EYE OF THE STORM’ This also made Birol a target of fossil fuel interests, especially in the U.S. With the second Trump administration far more intent on reorganizing the world’s institutions to reflect its version of American interests, Birol and the IEA are now “caught in the eye of a storm,” the European official said.  Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso — a powerful Republican from the coal state of Wyoming — has personally criticized Birol and is leading the charge to have the IEA ditch research that aids efforts to stop catastrophic climate change, given that such changes “are never going to happen,” he told reporters this winter.  President Donald Trump has ordered a review of U.S. involvement in all international organizations due in August. That has put bodies like the IEA on notice, with Washington’s withdrawal from the agency one possible outcome. U.S. funding has made up an average of 14 percent of the IEA’s annual budget over the past 10 years, according to the agency. The “difference of opinion” between U.S. and European officials over the IEA is “a source of friction,” said Michael Bradshaw, a professor of global energy at Warwick Business School. It puts Birol in a difficult position, trapping him between the competing agendas of major IEA member countries. “There is a delicate balancing act here in terms of setting an agenda — and who is setting the agenda,” Bradshaw said. In careful opening remarks at the London summit on Thursday, Birol avoided mentioning climate change and emphasized the necessary role of oil and gas as the world moved increasingly to clean energy.  “Oil and gas are key parts of our energy mix, and they will remain as part of the energy mix for years to come,” he said.  U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is close to Fatih Birol, a British official said. | Pool photo by Justin Tallis via AFP/Getty Images Republicans have expressed particular animus toward an IEA prediction last year that global oil use would peak this decade, which they claim has harmed energy investments. The U.S. is a significant IEA funder and a powerful voice on its board of directors — although European officials insist they will resist any effort to change the IEA’s mandate.  The U.S. delegation to this week’s London energy summit will be led by Joyce, the Energy Department official. Joyce has also represented the administration at recent IEA meetings. At the summit on Thursday, Joyce said climate policies create energy scarcity and “harm human lives.” The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. Trump accepted millions in campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.  OPPORTUNITY TO RALLY At the London summit, European officials and other backers of a tough response to climate change saw the opportunity to rally around the IEA and Birol and to present an alternative vision for a secure energy supply — one based on abundant, cheap renewable energy. This, they argue, is the cheapest and best approach to global energy and is backed by data from the IEA, among many others. U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is close to Birol, a British official said. The U.K. minister lauded Birol on Thursday as the conference got underway. “The IEA is so central to the global discussion on energy, and I want to thank you — and perhaps the audience could show our appreciation for Fatih and the work he has done,” Miliband said.  The audience did.  “The notion that energy security equals fossil fuels is just not true,” a senior United Nations official told reporters on Wednesday. “So while some might push this narrative, we know that it is not true. In most parts of the world, renewables — wind, solar and storage — are the least cost option for new power generation.” At the London summit, Birol said there was one thing he regularly told his staff: “Data always wins.” Zack Colman contributed reporting in Washington. Zia Weise contributed reporting in Brussels. 

The EU must take decisive action to ensure it can power key industries, while stepping up its efforts to deal with Russia’s weaponization of energy markets, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared on Thursday. Speaking at an energy security conference in London, the head of the bloc’s executive arm said the continent was at a “decisive moment” in which “we see threats to energy security intensifying.” Von der Leyen touted an upcoming “roadmap,” expected on May 6, which she said will offer “concrete measures to phase out all imports of Russian fossil fuels so that we will no longer rely on a hostile power for our energy needs.” Earlier this week, POLITICO reported that the EU was considering a ban on new Russian fossil fuel contracts as part of its long-awaited roadmap. The plan has been delayed for weeks amid geopolitical uncertainty following U.S. President Donald Trump’s rapprochement with the Kremlin. Von der Leyen has, however, previously welcomed the suggestion of buying more American gas to help phase out Russian shipments. “These energy partnerships, including imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States, remain of strategic importance for the European Union,” she added, while also crediting renewable power as having helped break Moscow’s stranglehold. Meanwhile, the risk of Russian sabotage and cyberattacks against energy infrastructure is growing, demanding more cross-border cooperation with countries like Britain. “We are developing capabilities to protect critical undersea cables,” von der Leyen said. “We are open and ready to share our experiences and to cooperate on this with strategic partners. “