Washington’s oil market hubris risks repeating the mistakes of the past — and threatens national security as well.
Fifty years ago, the United States learned a painful lesson about the cost of oil dependence. In 1973, following US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Arab members of OPEC cut off oil exports to the United States. Prices quadrupled within months. Americans waited in gas lines. And policymakers—Democrats and Republicans alike—realized that our nation could be brought to its knees by decisions made by petrostates and authoritarian regimes.
One of the key responses was the creation of fuel economy standards, first enacted in 1975 under President Gerald Ford. The goal was simple: reduce America’s vulnerability to oil price shocks by improving the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. It worked. Fuel economy doubled over the next two decades, reducing the oil intensity of the economy, insulating it from geopolitical turmoil, and reducing flows of American dollars to our adversaries. It also drove investment and innovation in the automotive sector—leading to efficient yet powerful vehicles and the development of hybrid and electric vehicle technology.
The fracking boom that turned the United States into a net exporter of crude oil has put us in a stronger position but also removed the bipartisan political will for breakthroughs to continue reducing our oil dependence. It has also led to devastating energy complacency. While a well-supplied oil market is less easily rattled by geopolitical risks, recent threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz are a reminder: An oil supply shock anywhere impacts prices everywhere.
Oil traders breathed a tentative sigh of relief, and oil prices retreated after Iran’s retaliation to the US attack was seen as mostly symbolic. With conflict raging in the Middle East, the oil market is in a precarious position, and the last thing Washington should do is reverse its energy security gains—yet that’s exactly what’s happening.
The Senate’s version of the budget reconciliation bill that passed last night completely guts the fifty-year-old federal fuel economy program, removing the financial penalties that require automakers to meet federal efficiency standards. The bill also dramatically weakens or eliminates the tax incentives for electric vehicles, advanced battery manufacturing, and critical minerals—key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act that were designed to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce our reliance on Chinese supply chains.
From a national security standpoint, this is shocking foolishness. During peacetime, our military doesn’t decommission our aircraft carriers and stop investing in military technologies—peacetime is when you protect your advancements and prepare for the future.
The United States still consumes nearly nineteen million barrels of petroleum per day, and nearly two-thirds of it goes to the transportation sector, which relies on oil for ninety percent of its energy. While domestic production has increased, we remain exposed to volatile global oil prices set by a cartel—OPEC+—dominated by authoritarian regimes. In the last two years alone, OPEC+ and Russia have coordinated a series of production cuts to buoy prices.
Weakening fuel economy standards means the consumption of more oil and higher prices at the gas pump. Meanwhile, cutting EV and battery incentives undercuts our most promising path to reducing oil demand over time. These bedrock energy security programs have saved trillions of gallons of gasoline in recent years. The combination of an inefficient vehicle fleet, fewer electric vehicle options, and surging geopolitical risks will have real consequences for families and businesses.
While we need to continue electric vehicle deployment to further reduce our oil dependence, we must ensure we are positioned for success in battery manufacturing. China currently controls over seventy percent of global battery cell manufacturing capacity and dominates the supply chain for critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and graphite. The IRA’s tax credits were specifically designed to counter this by encouraging production and sourcing within the United States and allied nations. Undoing them will only increase our dependence on Beijing.
This is not just an economic or environmental debate. For decades, the US military has recognized energy as a strategic vulnerability. Our forces operate around the world to protect the free flow of oil, especially through chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. But no amount of naval power can shield American consumers from the price of a barrel set at an OPEC+ meeting in Vienna involving oil ministers from Tehran or Moscow.
We’ve been here before. We know how this story plays out. When we ignore energy security, we pay for it—in higher prices, strategic concessions, and often in blood.
The smarter path is to finish what we started. The fuel economy program has a proven track record. Tax credits to support advanced energy investments are bringing jobs and investment to American communities while building a domestic energy supply chain. We should be reinforcing these policies, not reversing them.
Energy security isn’t about slogans. It’s about reducing the leverage that adversarial powers have over our economy and security. Congress should remember that—before we repeat the mistakes of the past.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the United States government or any private institutions. They solely reflect the view of the author.
About the Author: General Carlton D. Everhart (USAF, Ret.)
General Carlton Everhart was 12th Commander, US Air Mobility Command. General Everhart received his commission in 1983 through the Air Force ROTC program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He was the Air Force aide to the president of the United States and has commanded a squadron, group, wing, air operations center, two numbered air forces, and a major command. General Everhart has served in several senior staff positions at the White House, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, U.S. Transportation Command, and Headquarters Air Education and Training Command. He is a member of SAFE’s Energy Security Leadership Council and holds a B.S. in Agriculture from Virginia Polytechnic and State University.
Image: Shutterstock/FXQuadro
