The United States has issued a warning about potentially withdrawing from the International Energy Agency (IEA) if the organization does not shift its focus away from climate advocacy and prioritize energy security. This announcement comes amid rising tensions surrounding the global energy transition and America’s dissatisfaction with the IEA’s current direction.
U.S. Criticism of the IEA’s Approach
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright voiced the concerns during a press briefing on Tuesday, ahead of the IEA’s ministerial meeting scheduled for Wednesday. Wright stated, “We are not satisfied at all,” and emphasized the need for reforms within the agency to ensure the U.S. remains a committed member in the long term.
The IEA, headquartered in Paris and established in response to the 1970s oil crisis, has faced mounting criticism in recent years. The organization has been accused of leaning heavily toward climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, which some view as politically motivated. This has drawn backlash from U.S. lawmakers, particularly Republicans, who last year attempted to reduce U.S. funding for the IEA, accusing it of politicizing its future energy forecasts.
IEA’s Response and Recent Adjustments
Although the IEA has not directly responded to Wright’s latest remarks, the agency’s Executive Director, Fatih Birol, reportedly met with Wright earlier this week to discuss various energy issues, including clean cooking fuel initiatives. Notably, the IEA has made some adjustments to its forecasts in recent months. A major report released in November scaled back earlier predictions about the imminent peak of global oil demand and reintroduced the “current policies scenario,” which reflects existing political and economic conditions rather than aspirational climate goals. Birol clarified at the time that this move was driven by growing political and economic uncertainty rather than external pressure from the U.S.
Wright acknowledged these changes but stressed the need for deeper reforms. Speaking at an event organized by the French Institute of International Relations, he remarked, “If [the IEA] returns to being the excellent international agency it once was—focused on data collection, critical minerals, and major energy issues—we fully support it. But if it remains heavily influenced by climate agendas, we will withdraw.”
Energy Security vs. Climate Advocacy
The U.S. has long been one of the primary contributors to the IEA, providing approximately $6 million annually, which accounts for about 14% of the agency’s budget. However, the Biden administration’s recent steps to scale back international commitments on climate change have underscored the growing divide between energy security priorities and climate goals. Last month, the administration intensified its withdrawal from international climate cooperation by pulling out of several United Nations-affiliated organizations, as well as the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Implications of a U.S. Withdrawal
A U.S. withdrawal from the IEA could significantly impact the agency’s operations and influence. The IEA was initially created to safeguard energy security among its member nations, particularly during times of crisis. However, its increasing emphasis on reducing fossil fuel reliance and addressing climate change has drawn both praise and criticism globally.
If the U.S. follows through on its threat, it would mark yet another step in its retreat from international climate cooperation, further complicating global efforts to transition to renewable energy.
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
