
Trump admin expands LNG authorizations in Gulf of America states
Commonwealth LNG is a LNG liquefaction and export facility located on the west bank of the Calcasieu Ship Channel at the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico near Cameron. The facility will have six 50,000 M3 modular storage tanks and will be able to accommodate vessels up to 216,000 M3. (Special to the American Press)
By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy has so far issued five liquified natural gas (LNG) authorizations in the Gulf of America states of Louisiana, Texas and Florida.
Under the first Trump administration, the U.S. became the largest LNG exporter in the world, led by the Gulf states of Louisiana and Texas. By 2023, Louisiana accounted for 61% of LNG exports, according to U.S. Energy Information Agency data.
The new authorizations reverse Biden administration orders, including banning issuing new LNG export permits, which disproportionately negatively impacted Gulf states.
'Exporting American LNG strengthens the U.S. economy and supports American jobs while bolstering energy security around the world, and I am proud to be working with President Trump to get American energy exports back on track,' Energy Secretary Chris Wright said.
The DOE's first LNG export authorization was the Commonwealth LNG project in Cameron Parish. Owned by Kimmeridge Texas Gas, LLC, its exports to non-free trade agreement countries are expected to top 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of LNG.
The DOE said Commonwealth LNG exports 'are likely to yield economic benefits to the United States, diversify global LNG supplies, and improve energy security for U.S. allies and trading partners over the course of the export term through 2050.' A final authorization is expected later this year.
The DOE's second authorization was issuing an 'Order on Rehearing,' reversing a Biden administration order that created greater regulatory burdens for using LNG as a marine fuel source, known as LNG bunkering.
The reversal will benefit JAX LNG, a small-scale coastal LNG facility located at Dames Point near Jacksonville, Florida, impacted by the Biden-era directive. It dispenses LNG fuel to ships, including cruise ships, car carriers, petroleum tankers and container ships.
The DOE withdrew exercise of its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act for ship-to-ship transfers of LNG for marine fuel use at a U.S. port, in U.S. waters, or in international waters, it said. It also left unchanged its authorization to JAX to export LNG via ISO container.
The demand for LNG as marine fuel has increased as emissions regulations for shipping have increased. The number of LNG-fueled ships is expected to nearly double, reaching more than 1,200 vessels by 2028, according to an EIA January 2025 Quarterly Gas Report.
The DOE's third LNG authorization extends an LNG export permit for Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC, currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas. The project was first approved under the first Trump administration.
Golden Pass, owned by QatarEnergy and ExxonMobil, is expected to begin exports this year. Once operational, it will be the ninth large-scale export terminal operating in the U.S., able to export up to 2.57 Bcf/d of LNG.
The DOE's fourth authorization extended an LNG export permit for Delfin LNG LLC to construct a floating liquefied natural gas vessel off the coast of Louisiana after it was delayed by the Biden administration.
Delfin, majority-owned by Fairwood Peninsula, Talisman Global Alternative Master, L.P. and Talisman Global Capital Master, L.P., is expected to reach a final investment decision later this year. The order extends the authorization date to June 1, 2029, for Delfin to begin exporting up to 1.8 Bcf/d of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries.
The fifth and most recent authorization was for Port Arthur LNG Phase II in Jefferson County, Texas. Owned by Sempra Energy, it's projected to export 1.91 billion Bcf/d of LNG once completed. Port Arthur Phase I is currently under construction and expected to begin exporting LNG in 2027.
Sempra also operates the Cameron LNG export terminal in Louisiana, which has been exporting LNG since 2019. It's currently constructing the Energia Costa Azul terminal in Mexico, which is slated to begin commercial export operations of U.S.-sourced LNG next year.
All five authorizations bring the total volume of LNG exports to 11.45 Bcf/d, the DOE said.
According to EIA's most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook, LNG exports are expected to reach record highs this year, averaging more than 15 Bcf/d, coinciding with record projected natural gas production of nearly 105 Bcf/d, led by Texas and Louisiana.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says ‘democracy is at risk'
Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that acrimonious political discourse and threats to judges are eroding the ability of the United States to serve as an example of democracy worldwide. 'Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be,' Kennedy said during an online forum about threats to the rule of law. 'If they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk.' Kennedy, who stepped down from the court in 2018, avoided specifics during his 10-minute speech as part of a series of presentations by current and former judges. However, the Reagan appointee's remarks appeared to be triggered at least in part by strident attacks President Donald Trump has mounted against judges, including some whom he appointed during his first term, who have ruled against the administration's policies on immigration, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs. In March, Trump attacked U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a 'radical left lunatic' after he attempted to block the administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under a wartime presidential power Trump invoked. Trump also called for Boasberg, an Obama appointee, to be impeached. Last month, Trump issued a social media post denouncing 'USA-hating' judges as 'monsters who want our country to go to hell.' The extreme rhetoric has come alongside a spike in threats against judges, although administration spokespeople have said the president opposes any threats and the Justice Department will prosecute them. 'Judges must have protection for themselves and their families,' Kennedy said. 'Our families are often included in threats.' Some other participants were more explicit in calling out Trump's salvos at the courts. While also not mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas invoked the president's statements more directly, arguing they are akin to attacks on judges that have caused other countries to slide into authoritarianism. 'Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America,' Salas said. 'We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down.' Salas, whose son was killed and her husband wounded by a disgruntled litigant at their New Jersey home in 2020, said the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges so far this year. 'We're going to break records — and not in a good way,' said the judge, an Obama appointee. In his remarks Thursday, one day before his former Supreme Court colleagues are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term, Kennedy did offer some indirect praise for Trump. The retired justice repeatedly said he welcomed the ceasefire in fighting between Israel and Iran — a deal brokered by the White House. 'The world is celebrating what looks like, what we hope might be, peace for a period of time in the Middle East,' Kennedy said. 'Peace is what gives us the opportunity to make democracy stronger, to make freedom more attainable, to make freedom greater for ourselves and the rest of the world. We must always say no to tyranny and yes to truth.'


New York Times
7 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. soccer investor fighting extradition from Spain, wanted on multiple allegations of fraud
Prominent multi-club investor Paul Conway has been in a Barcelona prison for more than five weeks and is fighting extradition to Belgium, where he is wanted for questioning in relation to six allegations of fraud linked to the 2024 bankruptcy of KV Oostende. The American has strongly denied any wrongdoing and his wife has described the experience as a 'nightmare', likening it to a scene from Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables. Advertisement Conway, 55, is the co-owner of Pacific Media Group (PMG), a Hong Kong-based sports and entertainment firm that combined with other Chinese and U.S.-based investors to build a stable of European clubs that numbered seven at its peak. He has either sold or lost control of three of those clubs now, though, with Oostende being his most acrimonious exit, as a local administrator seized control in early 2024 but could not prevent the Belgian side from collapsing that summer. The club's demise, however, sparked an investigation by the Belgian federal police's Sports Fraud Team and, in March this year, an investigating judge at the District Court of West Flanders issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for Conway. It was done 'in absentia', which means the Florida-based Conway was not present. As a result, Conway was blindsided when he was arrested on arrival in Spain on May 20 for a short non-football-related business trip. He was immediately taken into custody and had his first court hearing, via video link, with a judge in Madrid the following day. His lawyers managed to block his immediate transfer to Belgium, but he has remained in prison while the legal arguments have continued, causing great concern to his family and friends. Speaking to The Athletic, his wife, Louisa Conway, explained that the first she knew of it was when her husband's Spanish lawyer informed her. She had been expecting him to return to Florida on May 23 to take one of their daughters on a college-visiting tour. 'It was a shock and the beginning of a nightmare for our family,' she said. 'Paul has no criminal record, so we struggle to comprehend why the Belgian government issued the EAW. 'The best way to describe this nightmare is to say it's like waking up in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, where a person is thrown in jail for stealing bread. No facts, just emotional allegations.' Advertisement This is a reference to the family's view that the Belgian authorities want a scapegoat for the death of a community asset that was much loved but had been in well-publicised financial difficulties before Conway's group of investors arrived, then went bust after they were removed from power. While there is no disputing how unpopular Conway was by the end of his time at Oostende, he was initially greeted as a saviour. The Belgian police and investigating judge have not responded to requests for comment. The EAW outlines the six crimes it believes Conway may have committed, with the central allegation relating to Oostende's 2021 purchase of striker Mikael Biron from French team AS Nancy, another of the clubs in the PMG portfolio. Biron, now 27, cost a reported €5million (£4.25m), but was promptly loaned back to Nancy and then sold to Belgian team RWD Molenbeek a year later for €2.5m. The initial transfer raised eyebrows and many Oostende fans thought it was done to boost Nancy's finances when they were struggling to obtain a licence to continue as a professional side in France. The EAW explains that the football fraud squad were alerted to the issue by a July 2022 article in Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad. The EAW also refers to other 'unusual costs' incurred by Oostende for Nancy's benefit, as well as a €1m (£850,000) payment made to a French law firm's client account that was later 'partially reimbursed' by some of Nancy's shareholders. Conway's family, however, in strenuously denying his involvement in any possible fraud, point out that Conway never had sole control at either Oostende or Nancy and his personal shareholdings at the clubs amounted to 7.5 per cent and 2 per cent, respectively. They also note that Oostende's local shareholders appear to be blaming PMG for the collapse of a proposed rescue by a group led by Mark Campbell, a British businessman who had previously failed with bids to buy Stirling Albion, Sunderland and West Bromwich Albion in the UK. As previously reported by The Athletic, Campbell was declared bankrupt in 2010 and has been involved with dozens of dissolved businesses in England and Spain. Advertisement Describing the Belgian authorities' action as 'mind-boggling' and 'an arbitrary abuse of power', Louisa Conway believes they are 'weaponising their judicial system to settle financial disputes related to a bankrupt soccer club'. '(They) have the right to conduct an investigation into Oostende's bankruptcy, but, oddly, they have only issued one arrest warrant,' she said. 'The club had a board of directors, which my husband was a member of between 2000 and 2023, and it was managed by several locals. Why is the Belgian management team not under investigation (too)? 'Belgium's use of the EAW here is truly frightening, and they have incarcerated my husband on the musings of a blogger. If they want to investigate, that's their prerogative. But why not call him? Why issue this arrest warrant? 'I still cannot believe this mess is emanating from Belgium, the 'heart of Europe', a land of diplomacy and cooperation. The USA needs to pay close attention to how American business people could be wrongfully detained by these EAWs.' While her anger at her husband's plight is understandable, there will be fans at the clubs Conway has invested in who will be thinking there is no smoke without fire, although Conway has strongly denied any wrongdoing. PMG, which is co-owned by Hong Kong-based businesswoman Grace Hung, first teamed up with Chinese-American hotelier Chien Lee to buy a majority stake in OGC Nice in 2016. A year later, after looking at several other British clubs, it bought struggling Championship side Barnsley, with famous Oakland Athletics executive vice-president Billy 'Moneyball' Beane joining the investment group. Barnsley were relegated that season, but Nice enjoyed some success and PMG and Lee's New City Capital were able to quadruple their initial investment when they sold the French club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe in 2019 for €100m (£85m). But it is what they did with that money over the next three years that catapulted them to wider attention, as they bought stakes in Swiss side FC Thun, Oostende, Nancy, Danish team Esbjerg, Den Bosch in the Netherlands, Germany's Kaiserslautern, and GKS Tychy in Poland. Advertisement In 2021, with Oostende flying high in the Belgian top tier and Barnsley reaching the Championship play-offs, it looked like the group's strategy of playing high-energy, hard-pressing football, with German coaches and young players, was working. The aim, Conway freely admitted, was to fund the group's activities by regularly selling its best young talent. However, problems hit in 2022 when Barnsley, Esbjerg and Nancy were all relegated in varying states of financial difficulty. The ownership group, which had evolved as more clubs were added, also started to fracture. Conway and Lee were pushed out at Barnsley in 2022 — and later fined by the EFL for failing to fully disclose who all of their partners were in 2017 — and lost control at Esbjerg in 2024, the same year they sold their Den Bosch shares to a Chinese group. With Oostende declared bankrupt last summer, PMG now only holds tiny stakes in Barnsley and Nancy, and larger but not controlling stakes in Kaiserslautern, Thun and Tychy. These five clubs are on firmer footing, but there is little sign of them operating as a multi-club group anymore. In the meantime, Conway is approaching his 40th day in custody, while lawyers in Belgium, Spain and the U.S. argue about his fate.


Vox
8 minutes ago
- Vox
MAGA's plan for moms comes at a cost
is a senior correspondent for Vox, where she covers American family life, work, and education. Previously, she was an editor and writer at the New York Times. She is also the author of four novels, including the forthcoming Bog Queen, which you can preorder here The MAGA movement has a particular vision of the ideal American family. For starters, there are lots of kids. There's a dad who works a manufacturing job to provide for them financially. And, according to many influential figures on the right, there's a stay-at-home mom who holds it all together. Prominent Republicans from Vice President JD Vance to Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri have floated policies aimed not just at boosting birth rates, a key conservative goal in recent years, but also encouraging parents to stay home with kids, as Caroline Kitchener reported at the New York Times earlier this year. Those advocating these policies typically don't specify which parent should stay home. But Hawley, Vance, and other Republicans have been vocal about the importance of male breadwinners and women's childbearing and childrearing responsibilities, and within the larger MAGA project of pronatalism and manufacturing resurgence, it's fairly clear who the stay-at-home spouse is supposed to be. These realities raise a basic question about social conservatives' goals: Would it even be possible to reverse decades-long global trends in women's employment and convince mothers to stay at home? Pronatalist policies generally have not worked well to increase birth rates. Manufacturing jobs probably aren't coming back. But can President Donald Trump's allies find a way to make their goals for moms a reality? After several weeks of speaking with experts, I have good news for Vance et al: There is an answer. You just have to give moms a million dollars. The history of moms at work Stay-at-home motherhood is sometimes portrayed as a natural or original state of humanity, something women began to deviate from around, say, the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. In fact, mothers have moved in and out of various kinds of work over the course of American history. 'People treat the 1950s as the conventional ideal,' said Matt Darling, a senior research associate at the policy research firm MEF Associates who has written on mothers in the labor force. But if you go back to the 1800s, most white women and their husbands worked together on farms. 'The household was an economic unit,' Darling said. As the American economy transitioned from agricultural to industrial, Darling has written, more men went to work in factories and more women focused on child care and other work in the home. Stay-at-home motherhood was never universal — Black women in the US, for example, have always worked in high numbers, with the highest labor force participation rate since record-keeping began in the 1970s, and likely before, Michelle Holder, an economics professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told me. But in the mid-20th century, families with a male breadwinner and stay-at-home wife were more common than they are today. In 1950, 29 percent of women — 46.4 percent of single women and 21.6 percent of married women — participated in the labor force. Rather than representing a historical norm, the 1950s were one particular point in time during which a subset of American families found it most efficient for one parent to work outside the home and one to work inside it. That point in time was also fleeting — women's labor force participation climbed steadily from the late 1940s, peaking at 60 percent in 1999 before dropping slightly. In 2024, 57.5 percent of women were in the labor force. During the same time period, men's labor force participation dropped steadily, from 86.4 percent in 1950 to 68 percent today. What would make moms stay home? To reverse these trends and get moms back in the home, Republicans have proposed a few ideas. One is to open up public lands for housing development, with the goal of reducing housing costs. Lower housing prices, some believe, could make it easier for families to live on one income. (It is not clear if opening up public lands would actually reduce housing costs, or how much lowering housing costs would really affect people's decisions around kids and family.) Another plan is to change the tax code. Right now, parents get a tax credit of about $2,000 for each child they have, and an additional credit of up to $6,000 to help defray the expenses of child care. Some Republicans want to reduce the child care credit and add that money to the lump sum parents get per kid, possibly bumping it up to $5,000. Research on increases to the child tax credit has shown a small effect on moms' labor force participation, Darling told me. For example, the temporary expansion of the child tax credit in 2021 led to a reduction in employment among mothers with low levels of education, according to one 2024 study. But for most mothers — even those who might like to stay home — an extra $3,000 per kid isn't enough to counteract the powerful forces that have transformed the American workforce over the last half-century. 'Our expectations about what a middle-class life is like have changed' Some of the most pressing forces are economic. 'Our expectations about what a middle-class life is like have changed to some degree' since the 1950s, Tara Watson, the director of the Center for Economic Security and Opportunity at the Brookings Institution, told me. Houses have gotten larger and more expensive. There's a greater expectation that kids will go to college, which also costs a lot of money. Extracurriculars like youth sports are pricier and more regimented than they once were. If you wanted to make it easier for families to get by on one income, you'd have to make that income bigger by raising wages, some experts say. 'The federal minimum wage hasn't been raised since 2009,' Holder told me. Raising that would exert upward pressure on low-wage jobs in general, putting more money in parents' pockets. While Republicans have not generally supported minimum wage increases, one advocate of stay-at-home parenthood, Sen. Hawley, is sponsoring a bill that would boost the federal minimum to $15 an hour. But there's a catch. Some believe that the transition to dual-earner families happened not because of rising costs, but because of rising incomes. It sounds counterintuitive, but Darling has laid out the case, citing the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Claudia Goldin. Essentially, wages began to rise in the years after WWII, especially in fields like office work that were more open to women than factory labor had been. Rising wages gave moms an increasing incentive to work — if they stayed home, they'd be leaving more and more money on the table. (Some research also posits that women are more likely to work outside the home when their potential earnings outstrip the cost of child care.) As Darling put it to me, 'it might not be worth it for me to take a job when it's $10 an hour, but it might be worth it to me when it's $15.' If more women started working in part because of rising wages, then boosting wages even more might incentivize even more women to work. Instead, the only way to get more women to stay home, some say, would be to pay them to do just that. What's the going rate for giving up your career? It's not unheard of: According to the Times, Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) has introduced a bill that would pay stay-at-home parents for providing child care, an approach that's been proposed by some liberals as well. The bill would allow subsidies that currently go to child care providers through the federal Child Care & Development Block Grant to go to family members instead. The idea of compensating family members for providing care isn't new, or unique to Republicans — a number of states, including New Jersey, offer payment for what's known as family, friend, and neighbor care. But subsidy rates tend to be very low, and some family members who receive them say they're not even enough to cover the cost of what children need (like diapers and food), let alone enough to provide someone with a living wage. If you really wanted lots and lots of American moms to leave paid work for stay-at-home care, you'd have to pay them more — a lot more. That's because you're not just replacing their income (which, in 45 percent of cases, pays the majority of bills in the household); you're also working against 75 years of American culture. A hundred years ago, many American women would have been very happy to take money to stay home, said Alice Evans, a senior lecturer at King's College London who writes about gender roles across societies. Their society already idealized (white) stay-at-home motherhood and they gained prestige and status from their role as moms. Today, however, 'women see success and status in having a career.' That success has been very real, and goes beyond pure economics. When American women entered the workplace, they achieved greater independence and the ability to leave bad marriages. Many found new social relationships and new sources of meaning and fulfillment. Women gained more power in society, more seats in Congress and on corporate boards, and more rights (though none of this came without struggle or backlash). In a 2023 McKinsey report on women in the workplace, 80 percent of women said they wanted to be promoted, the same share as men. A full 96 percent said their career was important to them. To get women to drop out of the workforce, then, the government would need to give them enough money to overcome the powerful incentives, both financial and social, that drive them to work. 'Maybe if someone offered me a million, I'd stop doing my Substack,' Evans joked. When I asked Goldin, who won the Nobel in 2023 for her work on women's employment, whether policies like baby bonuses or larger child tax credits would convince moms to stay home, she replied, 'Are we giving them a million dollars?' What if even $1 million isn't enough? Obviously neither Evans nor Goldin has studied whether giving moms a check for $1 million would convince them to stay home with their kids. Even in today's inflationary times, that number is basically a shorthand for a lot of money. The point is, if you want mothers to give up all the benefits they get from working, you're going to have to make it really financially attractive. And that's expensive. If there are about 25 million working moms in the US, giving each one a million dollars would cost the US about $25 trillion, an amount that dwarfs even the $2.8 trillion Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is projected to cost the country over the next 10 years. Costs grow even more if the $1 million is an annual payout rather than a one-time sum. Paying only moms in the labor force without offering the same sum to moms already caring for kids at home also seems unfair — including the around 9 million stay-at-home moms in the US would boost the total even further. 'There's really no way to consider having even a fraction of those women withdraw from the labor force without it affecting the American economy' And that's all before we factor men into the equation. A two-parent home with a stay-at-home mom requires another person to be the sole breadwinner — according to a lot of socially conservative thinkers, that person should be a man, ideally a husband. But that puts a lot of pressure on young men, many of whom aren't even sure they want to get married, let alone bear the sole financial responsibility for a family, Evans pointed out. 'It's not just about giving women a million,' she said. How much would you have to pay men to go back to a 1950s nuclear family model, in which the entire burden of providing for a family rested on their shoulders? Getting a large number of moms to quit their jobs would also have indirect costs. The 25 million mothers working today are treating patients, teaching kids, selling products, and contributing to the country's GDP in innumerable ways. 'There's really no way to consider having even a fraction of those women withdraw from the labor force without it affecting the American economy,' Holder said. Trump and members of his administration have at times hinted that shrinking the American economy is acceptable if it allows the country to return to its manufacturing past. But tariffs purportedly designed to bring manufacturing jobs back home (and, some hope, bring men back to their former position of dominance in families and society) have been so unpopular that the administration has had to walk many of them back. It's hard to imagine that tanking the economy to get moms back in the home would fare much better. There are also surprisingly popular cultural forces — think tradwife influencers — encouraging women to prioritize stay-at-home motherhood, but it's a campaign that's unlikely to succeed at scale, due to cultural fragmentation and the hyperpersonalization of social media. 'It's much, much harder for, say, government to change people's values' than it might have been in the past, Evans said, 'because we're not all watching the same shows.' There are, of course, other options for supporting American families. If policymakers wanted to help moms with the costs and challenges of raising kids, they could institute national paid leave programs, Holder said. They could also make child care more accessible and affordable. In surveys, a significant minority of moms say the best setup for them would actually be to work part-time. If we wanted to make part-time work easier for parents, we could tackle unpredictable part-time schedules that make it hard for workers, especially at the lower end of the wage spectrum, to balance work and child care, Darling said. All this would probably cost less than $25 trillion. But if what Republicans want is to get moms back in the home, they're going to have to pay up. I will take my million in cash.