Donald Trump’s approach to the affordability crisis, like his Iran posture, is heavy on bluster and light on substance. Escalating military confrontation with Iran while touting energy affordability at home highlights an inherent policy contradiction, as heightened geopolitical risk tends to inject volatility into global oil and gas markets.

Trump shamelessly plugged his half-baked proposal for data centers to “produce their own electricity” and foot the bill for the AI boom during his State of the Union address last week. As Politico reported, “the pact is expected to encourage tech companies to pay for additional sources to power their data centers, fund grid upgrades, and commit to minimum electricity purchases to prevent sudden spikes to consumer prices.” Big Tech hyperscalers like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft have lauded the so-called “Ratepayer Protection Pledge,” with more companies signing on to the agreement at the White House on Wednesday.

More from James Baratta: EPA’s Endangerment Finding Repeal Stands on Shaky Foundations

On February 27, Trump belabored his policy of American energy dominance in Corpus Christi, Texas. He also seemed to indicate that hyperscalers would be required to sign the pledge. “I made it mandatory where they have to build their own electric power plant so they’re no longer taking out of the community,” Trump said.

Less than 24 hours later, he gave U.S. Central Command the green light to commence Operation Epic Fury. The early stages of the ensuing shock-and-awe campaign, carried out by American and Israeli forces in Iran, saw a double-tap strike on an all-girls school that killed 165 people, many of them children between the ages of 7 and 12.

Apart from the clear human cost of Trump’s senseless war with Iran, the joint military operation has sent global oil and gas prices—not to mention profits—soaring, and there is little indication those prices will come down anytime soon. The conflict shines a light on the flaws of American energy dominance.

Qatar produces 20 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG). The state-owned oil and gas company QatarEnergy ceased LNG production and declared “force majeure,” the legal contingency allowing companies to renege on a contract if events occur out of their control—like Iran attacking its facilities with drones. Meanwhile, the conflict led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime choke point for world energy markets. Insurers promptly canceled policies and raised coverage prices for vessels traversing both the Strait and the Persian Gulf.

“The longer this conflict lasts, the more likely it is that we’re going to see some lasting impacts on energy markets here in the U.S., and the more likely it is we’re going to see prices spike much as they did … during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,” Clark Williams-Derry, energy finance analyst for North America at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told the Prospect.

Qatar shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday. QatarEnergy’s main plant, in Ras Laffan Industrial City, is expected to remain offline for at least a month. “If that facility can be turned on fairly quickly, no big deal,” Williams-Derry said, “but if it stays off for a long time, or if trade through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted for a long time, then we’ll start to see more potential for price impacts here at home.”

Natural gas is the largest source of electricity in the U.S., which has deepened its reliance on the resource at the behest of Donald Trump.

The U.S. exports more LNG than any other country in the world. Export terminals buy natural gas from the same domestic supply that utilities and other energy providers use, meaning the price of gas at home is linked to the price of gas globally. The drop in supply has sparked a global scramble for LNG spot cargoes, led by buyers in Europe and Asia. With many of those shipments coming from the U.S., the bidding is expected to push global gas prices higher, making it only a matter of time before that surge filters back into the U.S. market.

IN THE MONTHS FOLLOWING Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, natural gas prices spiked to their highest level in over a decade.

“When that happened, U.S. consumers transferred over $100 billion of money from their pocketbooks into the coffers of the oil and gas companies,” Williams-Derry told the Prospect. “It was a direct transfer of wealth from U.S. consumers to oil and gas companies.”

With the global competition for natural gas ramping up, history appears to be repeating itself.

Both public and investor-owned utilities pass fuel costs associated with the commodity price of natural gas directly through to ratepayers. Utilities across the country implemented pass-through policies in the 1970s, but as the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) points out, those policies have “not kept pace with changing utility trends.” By increasing the nation’s dependence on natural gas, Trump’s policy of American energy dominance leaves ratepayers more exposed to global gas market volatility. “The more a utility relies on gas to generate power, the more exposed customers are to these rising prices. And utilities don’t need to file rate cases to increase customer bills when gas prices spike,” according to SACE.

Venezuelan Oil Revitalization: Paid For With Your Taxes

The nonprofit advocacy group recently joined a coalition led by the Southern Environmental Law Center challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s $1.5 billion Southeast Supply Enhancement Project, which will transport 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Virginia to Alabama. SACE contends the “exorbitant costs of this project will be stuck in ratepayers’ wallets for decades.” Their opposition is the spitting image of the backlash against the Williams Northeast Supply Enhancement in New York.

New York and other Northeastern states are particularly exposed to global gas market price spikes because their grid relies heavily on natural gas. The region’s limited pipeline capacity means that utilities import LNG during the winter months to meet increased demand. While the Williams pipeline may reduce utilities’ need for LNG imports, states that have sufficient pipeline capacity, such as Florida, generate the lion’s share of their electricity from natural gas and are equally as exposed to global gas market volatility.

Three of the nation’s LNG export facilities are slated for expansion this year, including the Cheniere Energy–owned Corpus Christi LNG Terminal. The Golden Pass LNG Terminal, which is owned by QatarEnergy and ExxonMobil, and the Plaquemines LNG Terminal are also expected to finish expanding capacity by year-end. (Plaquemines is owned by Venture Global, the second-largest U.S. LNG exporter behind Cheniere.)

“If you’re worried about paying your utility bills, pay attention to what’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf half a world away,” Williams-Derry said.

Read more

James Baratta is a writing fellow at The American Prospect. He previously worked as a reporter at MandateWire from the Financial Times. His work has appeared in Truthout, Politico, and The Progressive. James is a graduate of Ithaca College and a life-long member of the Alpha Kappa Delta International Sociology Honor Society. He is currently based in New York City.