Energy Secretary Chris Wright Says Withdrawal from IEA Is Now on the Table

In a bold move that underscores the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuel stance, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has publicly stated that the United States may withdraw from the International Energy Agency (IEA) if the organization does not shift away from its emphasis on green energy transitions.

This announcement, made during a recent interview with Bloomberg, highlights growing tensions between the world’s largest oil producer and an agency originally founded to safeguard energy security.

The IEA was established in 1974 in response to the Arab oil embargo, with the primary goal of ensuring oil supply security for member nations.

Over the years, however, the agency has evolved, increasingly advocating for net-zero emissions by 2050 and promoting renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, and low-carbon technologies.

Critics, including Wright and voices within the Republican Party, argue that this pivot has turned the IEA into a biased advocate rather than an objective forecaster of global energy demands.

In its latest Oil 2025 report, the IEA projected that global oil demand growth would slow dramatically, potentially declining slightly by 2030 under current policies.

This forecast starkly contrasts with OPEC’s outlook, which anticipates oil demand rising to 123 million barrels per day by 2050, up from around 105 million bpd today.

OPEC has repeatedly criticized the IEA’s predictions as “dangerous,” warning they could lead to energy market volatility.

Wright’s Ultimatum and BackgroundChris Wright, a former fracking executive and CEO of Liberty Energy, was confirmed as Energy Secretary in February 2025 with a 59-38 Senate vote.

Known for his outspoken denial of climate crisis urgency and advocacy for fossil fuels, Wright has dismissed the IEA’s oil demand peak projections as “total nonsense.”

In his Bloomberg interview, he declared, “We will do one of two things: we will reform the way the IEA operates or we will withdraw,” while expressing a preference for reform over exit.

Wright, who has no prior government experience, has engaged in discussions with IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol on these issues.

His nomination and confirmation drew praise from fossil fuel proponents but criticism from environmental groups, who label him a climate denier committed to unleashing U.S. oil, gas, and coal resources.

Earlier reports indicated the Trump administration was already pressuring the IEA to abandon its renewable energy focus.

The potential withdrawal raises questions about financial implications. The United States contributes approximately $5.8 million annually to the IEA’s regular budget, as reported for 2024, which accounts for about 18% of the agency’s total funding.

Estimates suggest the U.S. payment hovers between $6-7 million per year, making it one of the largest donors among the IEA’s 31 member countries. So the real question is, who is paying for the IEA to constantly force the wind and solar narrative? 

The IEA’s funding primarily comes from assessed contributions by its member states, based on a formula tied to national income and energy consumption. It operates autonomously with its own budget and governance, supplemented occasionally by voluntary contributions for specific projects.

A U.S. exit could strain the agency’s resources, potentially forcing it to seek alternative funding or scale back operations, though some analysts argue fiscal concerns are secondary to ideological differences.

News outlets have widely covered Wright’s threat, with Bloomberg Law noting it as a direct challenge to the IEA’s “green-leaning” forecasts.

Environmental advocates, such as those at Desmog, have highlighted Wright’s past attacks on climate targets as “sinister,” framing the move as part of a broader rollback on clean energy initiatives.

On the other hand, industry supporters see it as a push for “energy abundance” through innovation in fossil fuels and national labs.

Discussions on platforms like Reddit reflect mixed views, with some users noting that while the U.S. funding would be missed, the IEA might have little choice but to adapt or say goodbye.

This development aligns with the administration’s broader energy policy, which includes pledges to increase coal production and reduce clean energy subsidies.

As the world’s top oil producer and consumer, the U.S. holds significant leverage over the IEA.

Whether reform or withdrawal prevails, this standoff could reshape global energy forecasting and policy for years to come. Stay tuned to Energy News Beat for updates on this evolving story.