At the recently held NATO summit in Washington, members of the 75-year-old alliance convened to reaffirm their partnership in opposition to an increasingly hostile Russia. Among the many topics discussed, energy security and independence from Russia emerged as a priority concern for NATO members. The official summit declaration called out energy as “a critical capability enabler to NATO’s core tasks and military operations,” and therefore reaffirmed NATO’s commitment to ensuring a secure and resilient energy supply.

Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine has, in many ways, been an energy wake-up call for Europe and its allies. On top of security threats and Russian interference in Western politics, the Ukraine-Russia war has dramatically emphasized Europe’s need to detach itself from Russian energy. Given that Russia has traditionally been a major exporter of energy to Europe, replacing the European Union’s dependence on Russia has proven to be a daunting challenge for the Continent.

As one of the few allies capable of supplying Europe with the energy it needs, the U.S. is perfectly poised to meet Europe’s growing demand. However, a jungle of federal red tape and trigger-happy regulators are hampering domestic energy companies from exporting the fuel that Europe requires to function. If the Biden administration is serious about helping its European allies resist Russian dominance, this hostility to American energy exports needs to end.

The strategic importance of European energy independence cannot be understated. Powering the military forces and associated commercial and defense infrastructure with oil and gas from Russia — the very nation that now seeks to splinter European cohesion — simply makes no sense. It is a horrible idea and looks like the last gasp of a drowning person.

European nations know this and have seen the threat in action. After Russia’s initial incursion into Ukraine in 2022, European governments attempted to go cold turkey from Russian energy to cut into the Kremlin’s profits. Though necessary to punish Russia, these efforts, combined with Moscow withholding energy exports as retribution, spiked energy prices in European nations like the U.K., France and Germany, and led to fears that Europe would have to exhaust its energy reserves to keep the lights on.

Evidently, our NATO allies understand the benefit of ensuring their energy supplies can’t simply be turned off by a suzerain who lives in the Kremlin. That being said, Europe is by no means completely independent of Russian oil and gas. In February 2024, two years after the start of the Ukraine-Russia war, the EU was the fourth largest importer of Russian fossil fuels, buying almost €2 billion worth of LNGs, pipeline gases, and crude oil. Moreover, the top five biggest EU importers of Russian energy — Hungary, Slovakia, Belgium, the Czech Republic and France — are all members of NATO.

Even though the EU appears to be cutting itself off from Russia, given the widespread sanctions it has imposed, individual nations continue to rely on Moscow’s oil and gas for power. This reliance has even exacerbated tensions between traditional European allies. For example, when Ukraine recently blocked almost all Russian pipeline gas from reaching central Europe, countries like Hungary began to face a fuel crisis and so started clashing with their EU allies over Ukraine’s actions.

It’s clear that NATO does not want to rely on Russian oil and gas for fuel but is unwilling to fully abstain until they can import it from elsewhere. As the EU’s closest ally, the United States should be the nation to fill the gap left by the reduction in the access to Russian fuel. It’s a win-win-win for both regions. Europe benefits from energy independence; it directly enhances NATO’s efforts in support of Ukraine, and the U.S. receives a massive economic boost from the European energy market. There’s already plenty of precedent for increased oil and gas trade between the U.S. and EU: After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, America became the top supplier of crude oil to the EU in 2023.

If the solution is so straightforward, then why hasn’t it been done already? Simply put, the Biden administration has continued to restrict American oil and gas, kneecapping private energy suppliers’ efforts to send their products to Europe.

Earlier this year, the Department of Energy paused issuing permits for LNG export facilities. The pause lasted for over six months before a federal judge recently and thankfully lifted it. This significantly delayed efforts to increase LNG exports to meet Europe’s demand. Considering LNG is one of the EU’s main fossil fuel imports from Russia, banning new LNG export infrastructure undermines European countries’ ability to replace Russian LNG imports with American ones. Restrictions like these also inject uncertainty into the energy industry as a whole and disincentivize investment in key energy projects — including exports to Europe.

President Joe Biden has framed himself and the U.S. as Ukraine’s and Europe’s greatest ally against Russia. But because of his aggressive opposition to American oil and gas, he’s failing our allies in Europe. So long as this administration continues to undermine American energy exports to Europe, the EU will continue buying from Russia, bolstering the Kremlin’s treasury as it continues its brutal invasion of Ukraine.

With the presidential election on the horizon and Biden no longer a candidate for a second term, the U.S. will have a new administration in six months. Whoever is inaugurated in January must decide: restrict U.S. energy or boost domestic production. This is strategic. This is global competition. Boost U.S. production.

James “Spider” Marks is a retired U.S. Army major general and strategic adviser to the GAIN Coalition, a broad coalition of businesses, trade associations and labor groups that share an interest in creating jobs, protecting U.S. energy security, and strengthening our nation’s economy through infrastructure and energy development. He was not compensated for this column by the GAIN Coalition.