In a quiet corner of Brussels bureaucracy, the EU appears poised to undermine its own climate ambitions in order to court favour with a familiar and volatile transatlantic partner: Donald Trump.
At the heart of this latest controversy lies the EU’s Methane Regulation—a flagship piece of climate legislation designed to force fossil fuel producers, including exporters to Europe, to curb methane emissions at the point of origin. In its current form, the policy would bar dirty gas from entering the EU market, effectively setting a new global standard. But as the Union scrambles to cement its energy security post-Russia, this bold stance is beginning to wobble.
A leaked draft document from the European Council, seen by Gas Outlook, reveals Brussels is now considering a “simplification” of the regulation. In plain English, that means weakening it—most likely to ensure that American liquefied natural gas (LNG) continues to flow into European ports, unencumbered by pesky environmental conditions.
The timing is hardly accidental. President Trump, emboldened by court rulings that threaten to upend his trade powers, is looking to fossil fuel exports as a central pillar of his re-election narrative. The EU, sensing a shift in the winds, seems to be reaching for a concession. The hope, presumably, is that offering Trump an unregulated LNG bonanza will keep the tariff hounds at bay.
But this is a risky gamble—and one with no guarantee of reward.
Despite Trump’s bluster, his grip on trade levers has been significantly weakened. A U.S. court has ruled against the sweeping tariff authority his administration used to bludgeon allies and adversaries alike. While the decision has been temporarily stayed, the precedent has been set. Brussels, for once, holds a stronger negotiating hand than it seems to realise.
And yet, in a bid to appease, EU policymakers may soon deliver the one thing Trump’s oil cronies have long desired: an open door for U.S. LNG, free from environmental scrutiny.
Critics argue this would merely swap one dependency for another. After all, the rush to sever ties with Russia’s gas empire was born of geopolitical necessity. To now become reliant on American shale gas—a sector notorious for lax oversight and runaway methane emissions—is to repeat the very error the EU set out to correct.
“Methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas operations are already among the highest in the world,” warns Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Weakening the Methane Regulation to import more U.S. LNG will deepen our dependence on one supplier without delivering true energy security.”
Indeed, the American oil patch is rapidly becoming a regulatory Wild West. Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has gutted rules on emissions, abandoned methane enforcement, and even proposed scrapping the very data collection that allows oversight in the first place. One industry insider even crowed that this was the “greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.”
Back in Europe, the consequences of this policy shift would be profound. The Methane Regulation, if fully enforced, could drive down global emissions by setting standards that gas exporters must meet to access the lucrative EU market. Abandoning or weakening those rules not only compromises Europe’s climate leadership—it also signals that Brussels’ green rhetoric crumbles at the first whiff of political pressure from Washington.
Some policymakers are exploring alternatives, such as a supply chain certification scheme to track gas from wellhead to burner tip, rewarding low-emissions producers. But such systems are in their infancy and, critics argue, are no substitute for robust, enforceable standards.
And there’s another problem: Europe simply doesn’t need more gas. Demand has fallen sharply—down 20 percent since 2021—and is projected to decline further as the continent transitions toward renewables. Any justification for importing more LNG, let alone loosening environmental safeguards to do so, looks increasingly flimsy.
“The truth is, energy security isn’t built by switching suppliers,” says French Energy Minister Marc Ferracci. “It’s built by phasing out fossil fuels altogether.”
Still, industry lobbying is relentless. Groups like Eurogas complain that the Methane Regulation is “already preventing certain gas supply contracts from being signed.” Others whisper of trade barriers and lost competitiveness.
But Europe’s long-term interests lie not in appeasing Trump’s oilmen or turning a blind eye to methane leaks in the Permian Basin. They lie in building a cleaner, more resilient energy system—one that is not held hostage by the whims of autocrats or populists, whether in Moscow or Mar-a-Lago.
To simplify the Methane Regulation now would be a strategic misstep cloaked in the language of pragmatism. The EU must decide: does it wish to lead the world in climate policy, or cave in at the first knock on the door from Washington?
