The Biden administration has come under scrutiny following allegations that it intentionally suppressed a draft study that could have challenged its decision to pause approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. According to four sources within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a final draft of the study, which explored the climate and economic impacts of LNG export growth, was buried before it could be made public.
In January 2024, then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and President Joe Biden announced that the administration would place a temporary freeze on LNG export project approvals. The pause was justified by the need for further analysis, with officials stating that the DOE would conduct a fresh study to evaluate the long-term climate and economic consequences of expanding LNG exports. This move was framed as an attempt to ensure that the U.S. energy policy would align with the administration’s climate goals, focusing on reducing carbon emissions and addressing the impacts of fossil fuel use on global warming.
However, reports from multiple DOE sources suggest that the draft version of the study, which was reportedly completed before the freeze was announced, could have undermined the basis for the LNG export moratorium. The study, which is believed to have been conducted by independent researchers within the DOE, had reportedly shown that increasing LNG exports would not have as significant an impact on the U.S. economy or its climate goals as the administration’s decision implied.
Sources familiar with the situation claim that despite the study’s completion, it was not released to the public or made available to lawmakers or industry stakeholders. Instead, the administration proceeded with the decision to halt LNG export approvals based on the premise that more research was needed to assess the potential risks and benefits of further LNG expansion.
The decision to pause LNG exports has been a point of contention for several industry groups, which argue that increasing the export of U.S. natural gas could help meet global energy demands, particularly in Europe, where countries are seeking alternatives to Russian energy supplies amid the ongoing conflict with Ukraine. Proponents of LNG export growth contend that it would not only support economic growth and energy security but could also reduce global emissions by displacing more polluting coal and oil in other countries.
Critics, however, argue that increasing LNG exports would have adverse environmental consequences. They point out that the transportation and liquefaction processes involved in LNG production are energy-intensive and contribute to carbon emissions. Additionally, there is concern that expanding the U.S. LNG industry could encourage more fracking and fossil fuel extraction, further exacerbating climate change.
The alleged suppression of the study has raised questions about the transparency of the Biden administration’s decision-making process. Some critics argue that the administration’s actions represent a form of political maneuvering—choosing to ignore research that contradicts its policy in favor of maintaining public support for its climate agenda. These critics have labeled the administration’s actions as another example of what they term the “Biden curtain,” suggesting that key decisions are being made behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny and with limited accountability.
At the same time, some environmental groups have expressed concern that the freeze on LNG approvals might not go far enough. They argue that a true commitment to combating climate change would involve a much broader shift away from fossil fuels altogether, rather than simply slowing down the growth of the LNG export market.
The decision to pause LNG exports was part of a broader effort by the Biden administration to align U.S. energy policy with its climate goals. Under Biden’s leadership, the U.S. has re-entered the Paris Agreement and committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050. However, as the debate over LNG exports intensifies, the administration faces growing pressure from both industry advocates and environmentalists, all of whom demand clarity about the path forward for U.S. energy policy in a rapidly changing global landscape.
As of now, the draft study remains unpublished, and there has been no official statement from the Biden administration regarding its contents or the reasons behind its suppression. With energy policy continuing to be a central issue for the U.S. in the coming years, the handling of LNG export projects and related studies is likely to remain a key point of political and public debate.
