Amena’s view
There’s no shortage of speculation over how OPEC+ will respond to US President Donald Trump’s call for lower oil prices: This isn’t the first time he’s made such demands. But just like during his first term, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and external partners like Russia and Kazakhstan — together known as OPEC+ — won’t have a knee-jerk reaction.
Coming off a year dominated by concerns over weak demand and rising non-OPEC+ supply, the market’s attention has shifted to geopolitical risks — what traders call the “Trump factor.” His return has kept global benchmark Brent crude hovering around $80 a barrel in January, with added volatility from new US sanctions on Russia and tighter restrictions on oil producers like Iran and Venezuela looming.
In a move seemingly aimed at keeping prices in check, Trump called on OPEC+ to ramp up output, arguing it would weaken Russia and help end the war in Ukraine. No officials from the group have responded, because at its core, it remains focused on market management, not political posturing. That includes keeping Russia firmly inside the alliance to maintain maximum clout over global supply.
Under the current deal agreed upon in December, OPEC+ members committed to cumulative voluntary cuts of 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd) through the first quarter of 2025, followed by a gradual return of production over 18 months. A broader collective cut of 2 million bpd, alongside voluntary reductions of 1.66 million bpd, remains in place until at least 2026. OPEC+ delegates say that internal discussions indicate there’s no rush to change course, especially with oil prices still fluctuating in the mid-$70s. Compliance with the cuts has been strong — hovering around 90% — a key indicator of the group’s cohesion.
It would be naïve to assume OPEC decisions are free from political influence, but history shows the group has a track record of maintaining unity even when members go to war with one another, from the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Furthermore, member states are wary of any move that could be interpreted as bowing to Trump, particularly if it risks internal fractures or threatens the alliance’s independence and loss of members.
If a production increase does become necessary, OPEC+ has navigated similar US pressure before. In 2018, Trump’s sanctions on Iran forced tough negotiations within the group, with countries like Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela objecting to a collective output hike that could see their market share eroded because they couldn’t boost production. The compromise? In typical OPEC fashion, a vague, undisclosed production increase was reached — which maintained unity within the group.
For now, Trump’s next steps on sanctions against Tehran and Caracas remain unclear, as does their potential impact on supply and demand fundamentals. Meanwhile, US shale producers need oil prices to stay in the high $70s to maintain output growth — an economic reality that may temper the administration’s approach. OPEC’s Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee is set to meet on Feb. 3, with delegates expected to assess market conditions, including the US plan to increase output. The committee doesn’t set policy, but may recommend adjustments for the full group to consider if required.
Caution will likely prevail. China’s uncertain demand outlook remains a major factor, and despite warm ties between Trump and Riyadh, the stakes of OPEC+ unraveling are too high for Saudi Arabia and other US friends in OPEC to placate the administration. Oil policy transcends US presidencies. Saudi Arabia sets its upstream strategy on a decades-long horizon — it won’t let the next four years of Trump rattle its long game.
Amena Bakr is the Head of Middle East Energy & OPEC+ research at Kpler, an independent global commodities trade intelligence company.