From Tilak Doshi’s Substack

Tilak Doshi

The International Energy Agency (IEA), established in 1974 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, was founded with a clear and vital mission: to ensure energy security for its member nations, with coordinated oil stockpiling and rigorous data and analysis to guide energy planning and investment. For decades, it served as a beacon of pragmatic, evidence-based policymaking. It was also an important source of data and energy best practice for policymakers of non-member states around the world.

Tilak’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

However, like other major global institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the IEA has strayed far from its original charter, as I have written about extensively (here, here and here). Over the past decade or so, it has morphed into a mouthpiece for the progressive-Leftist establishment, particularly the Brussels-based European Union elite and the US Democratic Party, peddling climate alarmism and promoting unrealistic ‘Net Zero’ policies aligned with the Paris Agreement. This ideological capture has undermined its credibility.

On Tuesday, the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright expressed his determination to either reform the IEA or withdraw from it — taking with it 18% of the agency’s budget. Mr Wright’s threat is a clarion call for accountability for an institution that should once again be made fit-for-purpose. This move is not an isolated act but part of a broader counter-revolution in energy policy under President Donald Trump’s administration. President Trump and his senior policy team seek to dismantle the politicised narratives that have infiltrated global institutions.

The IEA’s Fall from Grace

The IEA’s original mandate was straightforward: to safeguard energy security for its 31 member countries, primarily by coordinating responses to supply disruptions and providing data-driven insights for energy markets. Yet, over the past decade, the agency has pivoted to become a cheerleader for renewable energy while demonising fossil fuels, which still account for roughly 80% of global energy consumption. Its forecasts, once grounded in empirical analysis, now often reflect wishful thinking, overestimating the adoption rates of renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs) while downplaying the enduring role of oil, gas and coal. This shift mirrors the priorities of the EU’s technocratic elite in Brussels and the US Democratic Party, which have embraced climate alarmism as a central tenet of their political identity.

The IEA’s transformation into a promoter of ‘decarbonisation’ narratives is not merely a departure from its mission but a betrayal of its responsibility to provide objective analysis. This betrayal is not restricted to the objective interests of its own OECD members. By giving credence to the globalist climate agenda and presumptions of an impending climate catastrophe, it has sided with the predilections of an affluent, virtue-signalling elite in the West against the needs of the poorest citizens of developing countries. These countries need access to cheap fossil fuels for their economic growth aspirations above all. There are no examples of countries attaining modern Western standards of living by dependence on intermittent, “thermodynamically incompetent” renewable energy technologies.

The IEA’s rosy scenario for renewable energy growth in its annual World Energy Outlook reports is called the ‘Stated Policies Scenario’ (STEPS), which assumes, unrealistically, that governments will successfully meet their clean energy commitments on schedule. It often ignores or downplays the intermittency of wind and solar and the costs of maintaining dispatchable power plants when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. It adopts unrealistic assumptions of technical progress and lowballs the high costs of grid-scale storage. Land-use conflicts, loss of biodiversity and adverse impacts on fauna inherent in sprawling renewable projects are also ignored.

Its dismissive treatment of fossil fuels disregards their critical role in powering industrial economies and lifting billions out of poverty in developing nations. This bias has real-world consequences: misguided policies based on IEA projections can lead to energy shortages, higher costs and economic disruption, as seen in Europe’s energy crisis following its overreliance on renewables while cutting back on coal and nuclear power. This worsened after Europe banned piped natural gas imports from Russia after the start of the Ukraine war.

Chris Wright, a seasoned energy executive and sceptic of the ‘energy transition’ dogma, has rightly called out the IEA’s unrealistic forecasts. In his Bloomberg interview, he said: “We will do one of two things: we will reform the way the IEA operates or we will withdraw. My strong preference is to reform it.” He warned that the agency’s current trajectory undermines its credibility and risks misleading policymakers and investors.

His ultimatum — reform or face US withdrawal — reflects a growing frustration with the IEA’s alignment with the progressive-Leftist agenda. The US, as the agency’s largest single funder, has significant leverage to demand change. Wright’s stance is not merely a negotiating tactic but a reflection of a broader shift in US energy policy under Trump, which prioritises energy realism over ideological purity.

The Trump Administration’s Energy Counter-Revolution

Wright’s push to reform or exit the IEA is part of a larger movement within the Trump administration to reverse what has been described as the ‘long march through the institutions’ by progressive ideologies. This phenomenon, well-documented by the Manhattan Institute in its statement published on Monday on higher education, refers to the gradual infiltration of academia, media and global institutions by ideas rooted in neo-Marxism, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) mandates and climate alarmism. These ideologies have reshaped institutions like the IEA, World Bank and IMF, turning them into purveyors of approved narratives rather than objective arbiters of policy.

The Trump administration has taken decisive steps to counter this trend. In 2017, the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement under President Trump’s first term. He rejected the notion that unilateral emissions cuts by Western nations could meaningfully address global climate challenges while China and India continue to expand their coal-fired power capacity. In his second term as President, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement once again this year after his predecessor, President Biden, re-enrolled the US as a participant in the UN programme in 2021.

Similarly, the US exited the World Health Organisation (WHO) when it became clear that the agency’s priorities no longer aligned with America’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA) ambitions. The WHO was criticised particularly after its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. These moves signal a broader rejection of globalist ‘consensus’ views that prioritise ideological conformity over national interests.

In the energy sector, Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda has revitalised the US fossil fuel industry, rolling back the anti-energy policies of the Obama and Biden administrations. From approving pipelines to easing regulations on drilling, the administration has prioritised affordable, reliable energy over the costly and impractical push for Net Zero. The recent passage of the Big Beautiful Bill Act aims to “rapidly eliminate the market distortions and costs imposed on taxpayers by so-called ‘green’ energy subsidies’” for solar, wind, electric vehicle and other ‘green’ technologies. President Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda has left the global climate juggernaut on the brink of collapse as other nations begin to question the feasibility of rapid decarbonisation in the face of energy security concerns.

Another example of President Trump’s counter-revolution in energy and climate change policies can be seen in the his administration’s efforts to restore scientific integrity at NASA. For years, the agency’s National Climate Assessments were criticised for promoting politicised narratives over rigorous science. These reports, often cited by climate alarmists, relied on speculative models and exaggerated worst-case scenarios to justify aggressive decarbonisation policies. According to Charles Rotter of Watts Up With That?, the National Climate Assessment has “long been a centrepiece in the grand theatre of climate fear, projecting dire futures with a laughable level of pseudo-certainty”.

In a bold move, NASA has begun removing these assessments from its website, signalling a return to the scientific method. Gregory Wrightstone, Executive Director of the CO₂ Coalition stated that: “We applaud the brave leaders at NASA who are taking the bold steps needed to begin the process of bringing the scientific method back into government scientific agencies. For far too long, real science has been replaced by political science, consensus science and blatant misinformation.”

Further reinforcing this commitment, Trump signed an executive order on May 23rd, mandating “gold standard” scientific practices across federal agencies. This order aims to ensure that government-funded science is transparent, reproducible and free from political agendas. It requires arms-length peer review processes for accountability in reporting research results. The IEA, though not a US agency, would do well to heed this example. Its forecasts, which increasingly resemble advocacy rather than analysis, fail the test of scientific rigour and undermine its credibility as a global authority on energy.

The Long March and its Discontents

The IEA’s drift is emblematic of a broader trend across global institutions. The World Bank and IMF, originally tasked with fostering economic stability and development, have increasingly embraced climate-centric agendas that prioritise ‘sustainability’ – a weasel word of choice for environmental zealots and ESG enthusiasts – over economic growth. As I have written elsewhere, these institutions often push policies that penalise fossil fuel investments in developing nations, effectively denying them the affordable energy needed to industrialise and alleviate poverty.

This reflects the influence of the progressive-Leftist establishment, which has captured key decision-making bodies in Brussels, various EU capitals and, until recently, Washington, DC. The Trump administration’s pushback against this ideological capture is not limited to energy policy. Its efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives in universities and federal agencies, as well as its rejection of progressive ideology, demonstrate a broader commitment to restoring meritocracy and reason in American institutions. The IEA, as a critical player in global energy markets, cannot be allowed to remain a vehicle for these ideologies. Mr Wright’s demand for reform is a call to return the agency to its roots as a neutral, data-driven institution focused on energy security and economic prosperity.

The Path Forward: Reform or Exit

The stakes for the IEA are high. If it fails to reform, the US withdrawal could trigger a cascade of defections, as other nations sceptical of the Net Zero agenda such as New Zealand reassess their participation. A diminished IEA would struggle to maintain its global influence, leaving a vacuum that could be filled by more pragmatic organisations such as the US Energy Information Administration or the OPEC Secretariat, both of which already collect international energy data and conduct policy analysis.

Alternatively, root-and-branch reform – necessitating the removal of senior management including its Executive Director Fatih Birol – could restore the agency’s credibility, ensuring that its forecasts and policy recommendations reflect the realities of global energy demand, technological feasibility and economic constraints. Reform would require the IEA to abandon its advocacy of renewables at the expense of fossil fuels and focus on providing balanced, transparent analyses. This includes acknowledging the limitations of current renewable technologies, the critical role of fossil fuels for modern industrial prosperity and the importance of energy access for developing nations. It also means engaging with a broader range of stakeholders, including industry experts and policymakers from energy-producing nations, rather than catering to the narrow interests of the EU and progressive activists.

Chris Wright’s ultimatum to the IEA is a pivotal moment in the global energy debate. It reflects a growing recognition that institutions like the IEA, World Bank and IMF have been co-opted by a progressive-Leftist agenda that prioritises ideology over evidence. The Trump administration’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda, coupled with its broader efforts to restore scientific integrity and reject globalist dogmas, offers a blueprint for reclaiming these institutions. The IEA must choose: reform and return to its mission of ensuring energy security, or risk irrelevance as the US and potentially other countries exit the organisation. In an era of energy realism, the world cannot afford institutions that peddle favoured narratives at the expense of facts and rigorous, unbiased analysis.

A version of this article was first published in The Daily Sceptic (https://ift.tt/tZHybD1)