The White House (via OMB) strongly protests Congressional efforts within the FY 2027 NDAA to prohibit the purchase of warships from foreign shipyards. The Administration argues that these restrictions undermine national security by limiting flexibility and hindering its strategy of leveraging allied yards, such as in the 'Finland model,' to drive investment into U.S. shipbuilding capacity. This signals a significant policy shift toward integrating international partners into advanced naval construction, suggesting the Pentagon is prepared to bypass traditional domestic build requirements for future combat vessels.
Trump wants US energy dominance. Global markets may not agree
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Trump’s energy-dominance agenda is delivering visible short-term gains in US oil and LNG output, but global market dynamics make sustained political control over energy trajectories difficult. The article points to record US oil production, LNG export growth above 20%, coal-plant retention measures, and ambitious nuclear expansion goals, while also noting renewables still took most new US power capacity in 2025 and globally covered all demand growth as they surpassed coal in generation. It emphasizes that energy investment cycles run 5–10 years, so current outcomes reflect earlier decisions and require long policy continuity to lock in structural change. For strategy, the US may gain near-term geopolitical leverage over prices and supply chains, but allies’ mixed responses, persistent renewable cost competitiveness, and deeper US exposure to hydrocarbon regions limit long-term dominance and complicate policy tradeoffs.
中文摘要
研究所指出，川普的「能源主導」議程已在美國石油與液化天然氣（LNG）產量上帶來可見的短期成果，但全球市場動態使政治力量難以長期主導能源走向。文章提到美國石油產量創新高、LNG 出口成長逾 20%、延續燃煤電廠運轉的措施，以及雄心勃勃的核能擴張目標；同時也指出，2025 年美國新增電力裝置容量仍以再生能源為主，而在全球層面，再生能源在發電量超越煤炭後，已覆蓋全部新增需求。文中強調，能源投資週期長達 5 至 10 年，因此當前結果反映的是更早期的決策，且若要鞏固結構性變化，仍需政策長期且連續的支持。就戰略而言，美國或可在近期於價格與供應鏈方面獲得地緣政治槓桿，但盟友反應分歧、再生能源成本競爭力持續，以及美國對碳氫資源區域更深的曝險，皆限制其長期主導能力並使政策取捨更為複雜。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Western Pacific remains a highly active theater defined by sustained U.S.-led military exercises and escalating great power competition. Key evidence includes continuous joint operations, such as RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii and the deployment of CSGs into the South China Sea, juxtaposed with increased naval activity from both China (PLAN task groups) and Russia near Japan's critical straits. These movements underscore a strategic push by non-allied powers to assert presence and challenge regional norms. Policy implications dictate that allied nations must maintain robust multilateral cooperation and interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation and manage escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
-
3.
The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
-
4.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
5.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.