Divided Washington Must Not Mean a Divided America
The message from America's midterm elections is unmistakable: Washington is entering a period of divided government. Democrats have secured control of both chambers of Congress, leaving President Donald Trump to navigate the final two years of his administration with an opposition-controlled legislature.
But the consequences of this political shift extend far beyond Washington.
In Warsaw, Bucharest, Kyiv, Tirana, Athens, Tokyo and capitals across the world, governments are watching closely. Over the past several years, many of America's closest allies have made consequential decisions about their energy futures, investing in infrastructure, signing long-term agreements and restructuring their energy systems around a fundamental assumption: that the United States will remain a reliable strategic energy partner.
They are now asking a question that Washington cannot afford to ignore: Will America's political divisions undermine the energy commitments upon which its allies increasingly depend?
At a moment of extraordinary geopolitical instability, the answer matters.
The disruption of energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz has already delivered a significant shock to global markets. The International Energy Agency projects that global LNG supply will decline by approximately 3% in 2026, the steepest annual decline on record. European gas storage has entered the 2026–27 heating season at its lowest level since 2013.
In this environment, American LNG is not simply another source of supply. It is a strategic stabilizer for allies, a counterweight to Russian energy leverage and an instrument of American economic and geopolitical influence.
The danger is not that a new Congress will immediately stop American LNG exports. It cannot simply reverse existing executive authorizations or terminate commercial contracts.
The greater danger is uncertainty: uncertainty over permitting, infrastructure investment, future export approvals and the durability of American policy beyond the next election.
For countries making investments that will last 20 or 30 years, uncertainty is itself a strategic liability.
Washington's political divide: An opportunity or a vulnerability?
The United States has a long history of political disagreement. Its energy leadership, however, should not be subject to the same electoral volatility.
The bipartisan permitting reform effort now before Congress represents an important opportunity to establish predictable rules for energy infrastructure, transmission, pipelines and LNG development. Allowing that effort to collapse under partisan pressure would send precisely the wrong message to investors and international buyers.
The January 2024 pause on certain pending non-free-trade-agreement LNG export authorization decisions demonstrated how quickly American energy policy can become entangled in domestic political debates. Whatever the merits of that decision at the time, its international consequences were significant: governments and commercial partners were reminded that American energy policy could change with an election cycle.
That lesson has not been forgotten.
The new Congress will also scrutinize LNG exports, domestic energy prices and the relationship between exports and household affordability. These are legitimate policy questions. American families and manufacturers must remain central to the country's energy strategy.
But the debate must be grounded in facts, not political slogans. Domestic affordability and international energy leadership are not inherently competing objectives. Responsible production growth, pipeline investment, infrastructure expansion and predictable regulation can support both.
The United States should not have to choose between supplying its own economy and supporting its allies. It should build the capacity to do both.
There is also an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. Energy infrastructure supports American employment, manufacturing, construction, skilled trades and national competitiveness. Permitting reform, reliable infrastructure and energy security are not inherently Republican or Democratic objectives. They are American interests.
Moscow's strategy: Profit from instability and wait for America to lose focus
Russia understands something that Washington must not forget: energy is power.
The Kremlin does not need to defeat the United States politically. It needs to exploit divisions, prolong uncertainty and preserve the revenue streams that finance its military ambitions.
The consequences of the Hormuz disruption illustrate the point. According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, higher energy prices following the US-Israel strikes on Iran increased Russian seaborne fossil fuel export revenues by an estimated €31 billion over six months.
Meanwhile, Europe continues to purchase substantial quantities of Russian LNG. In the first nine months of 2026, European ports received 12.18 million tonnes from Russia's Yamal project, representing an estimated €7.88 billion in payments, according to Urgewald's analysis of Kpler data.
These figures expose a fundamental contradiction in Western energy policy: Europe is seeking to end its dependence on Russian energy while continuing to provide Moscow with substantial revenue.
The EU's prohibition on Russian LNG imports under existing long-term contracts is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. The challenge will be ensuring that the transition is supported by sufficient alternative supplies and that enforcement is not weakened by market pressures.
Moscow will look for opportunities to exploit any shortage, political disagreement or diplomatic opening that could restore its position in European energy markets.
It will also seek to use negotiations over Ukraine to advance its broader economic interests, including the potential restoration of energy relationships with European buyers.
Washington must recognize that sanctions are only as effective as the political will to enforce them.
The bipartisan foundation for action already exists. The Graham Act, signed in September 2026, provides additional tools to target Russian energy interests and those supporting their trade. The new Congress should ensure that these authorities are implemented consistently.
Russia's strategy is straightforward: profit from instability today and wait for Western resolve to weaken tomorrow.
Beijing's strategy: Patience, diversification and strategic optionality
China approaches the global energy market differently.
Beijing plans over decades, diversifies its supply relationships and views energy security as an essential component of national power.
It does not need to reject American LNG. It simply wants the flexibility to purchase it when commercially advantageous, source alternatives when politically necessary and use energy relationships as leverage in its wider strategic relationship with Washington.
The experience of US-China LNG trade illustrates this approach. Chinese imports of American LNG fell to approximately 260,000 tonnes in 2025 following the escalation of trade tensions, with imports stopping after February. Chinese buyers redirected supply and relied on alternative producers.
In September 2026, China Gas Holdings agreed to purchase 500,000 tonnes annually of American LNG from Venture Global under a 20-year agreement beginning in 2030.
That is commercial opportunity, but it should also remind Washington that China maintains considerable flexibility in how it sources energy.
Beijing continues to diversify its supply portfolio, deepen energy relationships with Russia and expand its access to alternative suppliers. It also benefits when American strategic attention is divided between domestic political disputes and simultaneous international crises.
None of this means that commercial energy trade with China should be categorically excluded. But the United States must understand the difference between a commercial transaction and a strategic partnership.
When American export capacity is constrained, long-term commitments to trusted allies deserve serious consideration. A country that shares America's security interests and has committed to reducing dependence on adversarial suppliers represents a different strategic relationship from a buyer that can redirect its purchases according to geopolitical circumstances.
The United States should recognize that distinction when shaping its long-term energy policy.
Energy security is national security
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, America's allies have made difficult and expensive decisions to diversify their energy supplies.
European countries have invested in LNG import terminals, expanded interconnections and sought to reduce their dependence on Russian pipeline gas. Governments across Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean are looking to American LNG as a foundation for long-term energy security.
These decisions were not made in isolation. They were made in the context of a strategic relationship with the United States.
Energy security determines whether factories operate, whether households can afford heating, whether industries remain competitive and whether governments can withstand external economic pressure.
It is also directly connected to national security.
Every American LNG cargo that replaces Russian supply can reduce Moscow's commercial leverage. Every durable energy agreement with a trusted ally strengthens an economic relationship that extends beyond the energy sector. It creates investment, infrastructure, employment and shared interests that can endure for decades.
This is why American LNG should be understood as more than an export industry. It is an instrument of economic diplomacy and a practical expression of America's commitment to its allies.
That commitment must also be supported by a credible domestic energy strategy. Production, pipelines, terminals and transmission infrastructure must expand responsibly. Domestic consumers must be protected, and the industry must demonstrate that export growth can coexist with reliable and affordable American energy.
The political debate over data centers and electricity demand reinforces the need for better infrastructure planning, not a retreat from American energy leadership. The administration and Congress should address the full range of domestic demand, from manufacturing to artificial intelligence, while ensuring that consumers are not left carrying the cost of infrastructure expansion.
The answer is investment and capacity, not uncertainty.
Four commitments that should transcend party politics
The new Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate that America's strategic interests extend beyond the boundaries of party politics.
Four commitments should unite Republicans and Democrats.
First, complete meaningful permitting reform. American energy infrastructure must be built on predictable timelines. Projects that meet established environmental, safety and regulatory standards should not become political footballs every election cycle.
Second, establish durable and consistent LNG export policy. Long-term buyers and investors need confidence that American export authorizations will be governed by transparent standards and a stable legal framework, rather than recurring political pauses.
Third, enforce existing sanctions against Russian energy interests. The United States and its allies must ensure that Moscow cannot continue financing its geopolitical ambitions through energy revenues while Western governments attempt to reduce their dependence on Russian supply.
Fourth, recognize the strategic importance of America's allies. Long-term energy relationships with countries that share American security interests should carry strategic weight in national energy policy. Commercial markets matter, but so do national security, trusted partnerships and the resilience of the Western alliance.
America's energy leadership is a strategic commitment
The United States is entering another period of political division. That is a reality of its democratic system, not a reason to abandon its international responsibilities.
But the world is changing faster than Washington's political calendar.
Russia is seeking to preserve its influence through energy revenues. China is building optionality and extending its strategic reach. Allies are confronting a more uncertain global energy market while making decisions that will shape their economies for generations.
They are not asking Washington to agree on everything. They are asking America to remain dependable.
The United States has spent decades building the infrastructure, technology, financial markets and commercial relationships that have made it a global energy leader. That leadership carries responsibilities.
American energy policy should not change direction every time political control changes hands. A 20-year LNG contract cannot depend on the outcome of a two-year congressional election. Nor should the energy security of America's allies be placed at the mercy of domestic political cycles.
Washington can disagree on taxes, spending, regulation and the size of government. But it should not disagree on the fundamental importance of protecting America's energy security, supporting its allies and preventing adversarial powers from exploiting the vulnerabilities of the free world.
Divided Washington must not mean a divided America. And it must never mean an America that leaves its allies questioning whether its word will endure.
That is not simply an energy policy. It is a matter of national security, international credibility and American leadership.