Recommendations of the Editorial team
Thomas Hardy is changing America’s foreign aid in secret
Among the many conspicuous personalities at the renowned energy conference in Ceraweek in Houston, a man particularly noticed through his unobtrusive appearance: Thomas Hardy. While CEOs and ministers resided in luxury hotels, Hardy, a official I was appointed by Donald Trump, stayed in a simple hotel room for $ 130. He was photographed in a gray shirt with an open collar and shot. A modest appearance for someone who is in the process of significantly changing the direction of the U.S. assistance.
How the UStda under Trump becomes a control center for fossil interests
Hardy is the reigning director of the US Authority for Trade and Development (UStda). A comparatively small federal authority. While other institutions such as USAID lost influence under Trump, Hardy has made the UStda a quiet but central player for Trump’s energy policy agenda. This became particularly clear at the conference in Texas, where Hardy not only met with representatives of large oil and gas companies, but also spoke at events with the energy reserves of Türkiye and Libya. The French group total energy invited him to a cocktail reception- according to briefing documents with the aim of making contacts with the oil and gas industry.
Trump replaces climate protection with profitable energy partnerships
Instead of supporting projects for promoting clean energies as before, the UStda under Hardy should now finance infrastructure for natural gas in emerging countries. This corresponds exactly to Trump’s idea of ”energy dominance” – a term that poses economic interests on climate policy considerations. According to its own statements, the UStda has already found “enormous” interest in such projects.
Trump’s new development policy – more export, less help
While millions for Trump’s re-election campaign from the fossil industry flowed, his foreign policy course now promises a double dividend: support for US companies and geopolitical influence through energy partnerships. But critics like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse warn of a dangerous imbalance. Trump’s course brings higher energy costs for US consumers and is also a step backwards for global climate protection. Whitehouse speaks of an “reverse Robin-Hood scheme” in which the general public has to pay for the profits of fossil elites.
New permits instead of climate protection: Trump’s energy policy turn
Before taking office, US gas companies had expanded capacities for exports abroad. This process is now being forced under Trump: environmental requirements have been loosened, funding areas were expanded and export licenses are awarded in the quick procedure. The message is clear: instead of clean energies, American liquid gas is now to dominate the world markets. LNG is also brought into play as a remedy for trade deficits.
The UStda between activism and standstill
While many authorities in Trump era came to a standstill, Hardy was present at conferences, planned new projects and met with international partners. The UStda may officially lie on ice, but its influence lives on – especially through contacts with key companies such as GE Vernova or Cheniere Energy. According to briefing notes, Hardy wants to promote the “entire range” of forms of energy, with a focus on natural gas, critical minerals and nuclear energy.
Reverse Trade Missions: When development aid becomes a sales event
A integral part of the UStDA strategy are so-called reverse trade missions: the authority brings decision-makers from developing countries with US companies-a win-win situation for export, but problematic for countries that would be dependent on climate-friendly energy in the long term. Hardy also met with GE Vernova at Ceraweek – a company that is active in the field of renewable, but also produces gas turbines. The boundaries between development aid and industrial policy are increasingly blurred.
US development aid as a lever for fossil infrastructure
A look at internal UStDA documents shows how systematically the authority has funded gas projects in countries such as Sierra Leone, Vietnam or India during Trump’s first term. This policy was fruits. Export orders worth over one billion dollars were generated. According to notes, Hardy plans to integrate the industry again. To further develop this strategy and adapt to new market needs.
Climate researchers raise the alarm: LNG is not a solution
Scientists such as Robert Howarth from Cornell University urge to warn of emissions through liquid gas. His studies had persuaded the bidges to suspend new export licenses. LNG has one of the highest CO₂ footprints among fossil fuels. And countries like Vietnam – which were actively pushed under Trump to expand their gas infrastructure – could get into long -term dependencies. For Howarth that would be a “tragedy for the climate”.
Project 2025: Trump’s conservative master plan for foreign aid
Behind Trump’s energy policy realignment is more than pragmatism. It follows an ideology that formulated the conservative network “Project 2025”. This requires to delete all climate policy from foreign aid and privatize institutions such as the UStda. Or completely dissolve. Although Trump has publicly distanced himself from the project, his government action corresponds to his vision in many points.
Transactional development policy: Export beats development
The idea of providing help only where it brings the United States direct benefit, through many papers around Trump’s second term. Instead of grants, there should be loans. Instead of structural poverty control, investments in infrastructure that promise US companies profits. The UStda is at the center of this approach. Since, according to her own numbers, it generates an average of $ 231 of US exports with each dollar used.
Warning experts: US LNG is economical and ecologically questionable
LNG does not always make sense from an economic point of view. Sam Reynolds from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis considers it to be “financially unclear” to rely on US gas if cheaper, clean energy is available. The temptation to enter into short -term relationships with the United States could be expensive. Not only in dollars, but also in a lost time in climate protection.