Within a few hours, a “180-degree shift”! The United States went from “opposing” to “actively promoting” the largest strategic oil reserve release in history, driven by Trump’s concerns.

Within a matter of hours, the Trump administration completed a stunning policy reversal that left allies dumbfounded—going from opposition to actively promoting an unprecedented International Energy Agency (IEA) agreement among its 32 member nations for the largest-ever emergency oil reserve release—400 million barrels, more than double the previous record.

According to the Wall Street Journal on March 11, on Tuesday morning, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was still clearly stating at the G7 meeting that "large-scale market intervention is premature"; less than two hours later, the U.S. position suddenly reversed, and they began lobbying allies to advance this unprecedented action.

The report notes that a senior White House official revealed that this '180-degree shift' was entirely due to Trump himself—after being persuaded by advisors, he concluded that action was needed to curb oil price volatility, and then instructed Wright to push for market intervention. This abrupt turn reflects the extreme instability of the Trump administration’s decision-making during the Iran war.

However, the market remains skeptical about the effect of this "largest-ever" intervention—the 400 million barrels released equate to about 20 days of transit through the Strait of Hormuz, while oil prices still rose over 5% on Wednesday.

From "Opposition" to "Promotion": Policy Reversal Within Hours

According to the Wall Street Journal citing sources, on Tuesday morning, Chris Wright conveyed the White House position at the G7 Energy Ministers' meeting: with oil prices recently dropping below $90 per barrel, large-scale market intervention was "premature". This statement reflected Trump’s true thoughts at the time.

Yet less than two hours later, U.S. officials completely reversed their stance, pressuring allies to advance large-scale oil releases.

European officials were shocked by this abrupt turn, but ultimately chose to go along. The 32 IEA member countries then agreed to the largest-ever emergency oil reserve release plan, even bypassing the usual 48-hour review period provided by the agency to member states and making a quick decision.

U.S. officials revealed that the core driver for this release was the Trump administration’s deep concern about the Strait of Hormuz being blockaded. This choke point in the Persian Gulf supplies about one-fifth of the world’s oil, and a prolonged closure would severely impact global energy markets.

As early as before the U.S. launched airstrikes on February 28, Iran had already repeatedly threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz if attacked by the U.S. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. officials responding hastily to this economic shock had neither laid diplomatic groundwork nor informed key allies in advance.

Employ America Policy Director Arnab Datta bluntly criticized:

"What shocks me most is the complete lack of preparation for the energy market consequences of this war. Nothing was ready—absolutely nothing."

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision:

"President Trump has previously stated he would responsibly use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the appropriate time, and now is the time."

Largest-Ever Release: Can Oil Prices Stay Below $100?

This IEA-coordinated release totals 400 million barrels, far surpassing the previous record of 182 million barrels after the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. The U.S. will bear the largest share, over 100 million barrels.

According to reports, sources revealed that if all is released to the market, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve will fall to less than half its capacity, the lowest since at least 2008—while Trump in his inauguration speech promised to "fill the reserves to the top," the current level stands at only 60%.

For allocations among other member countries, a European energy minister stated that Japan will release 30.5 million barrels, Canada 23.6 million barrels, Germany 19.5 million barrels; French officials said France will contribute 14.5 million barrels, and the remaining 32 IEA member countries will provide smaller shares.

Notably, some members were not enthusiastic about participating. Major European nations such as Germany initially had reservations, believing that the Strait still being blockaded meant large-scale intervention would have limited effect in lowering oil prices.

German Energy Minister Katherina Reiche’s remarks were nuanced—while announcing Germany’s participation, she still questioned the effect of the intervention: "We are still far from $110 per barrel, and the market seems to be responding actively."

Additionally, according to the Wall Street Journal, a CEO of a major U.S. investment bank even warned a European minister that using 'maximum firepower' so early could backfire, sending a signal to the market that Trump is losing confidence. But governments ultimately abandoned resistance to avoid public disagreements causing greater market turmoil.

Despite the unprecedented scale, markets remain skeptical about whether this intervention can effectively suppress oil prices. On Wednesday, oil prices rose more than 5%, with most of the gains coming after the Wall Street Journal divulged details of the IEA intervention plan.

Hamad Hussain, London-based economist at Capital Economics, pointed out: "The speed at which IEA member countries can deliver emergency barrels to the market can’t keep pace with the loss of Middle East supply, even if hostilities end quickly."

Analysts believe the 400 million barrels released equate to about 20 days of transit through Hormuz Strait, leaving widespread doubts about whether this will keep oil prices below $100 per barrel.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market is risky; investment must be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider the particular investment goals, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should assess whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article fit their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at your own risk.