The OPEC Exodus - 2547NOW.com

May 15, 2026

The OPEC Exodus: What the UAE’s Departure Tells Us About Trump’s War of Choice — and Who Is Paying For It

When the United Arab Emirates announced it was quitting OPEC on the same week that gas prices hit a four-year national high and more than seventy lawmakers called for the President’s removal, something more than an energy market story was being written. It was a portrait of a presidency in collapse — and an American family at the pump, paying the bill.

On Tuesday, April 28, the United Arab Emirates announced it was quitting OPEC and OPEC+ — the thirteen-nation oil cartel that has shaped the global energy order since 1960 — effective May 1st. The announcement was framed in the bloodless language of geopolitical strategy: the UAE, it said, was acting in the interest of “national interests” and its “long-term strategic and economic vision.” But no sentence in that carefully worded statement can be read in isolation from the war Donald Trump chose to start on February 28, 2026, when the United States bombed Iran with no plan to safeguard the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. The UAE’s departure is not simply a story about an oil cartel losing a member. It is a story about a world reordering itself around an American president who, by his own admission, is “the one that kept it closed” — the Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world’s oil and gas flows daily. And the cost of that closure is being paid, cent by cent, at every gas station in America.

1. Why the UAE Walked — and What It Reveals

The UAE has been a member of OPEC since 1967, longer than many of its current leaders have been alive. Its departure is not impulsive. It is the product of years of quiet frustration with OPEC’s production quota system, which had capped Abu Dhabi’s output at 3.2 million barrels per day even as the country’s production capacity expanded to 4.8 million barrels per day. The UAE had invested heavily in expanding its infrastructure; OPEC’s internal rules prevented it from cashing in.

But the proximate cause of the departure is inseparable from the Iran war and its consequences. UAE Energy Minister Suhail Mohamed al-Mazrouei confirmed that the decision was made “after a careful look at current and future policies related to level of production.” Notably, he said the UAE did not raise the issue with any other country before departing — not even Saudi Arabia, its nominal Gulf ally and OPEC’s de facto leader. That silence is itself a statement.

Energy strategist Kingsmill Bond of think tank Ember Future was direct about what the move signals: the UAE is preparing for the world that comes after Trump’s war. As Bond told Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi is “preparing for a world after the Iran war where oil demand is in decline, and OPEC’s power to maintain control and discipline will be weaker.” The UAE wants to flood the market with oil while oil still commands high prices — a strategy diametrically opposed to Saudi Arabia’s approach of keeping production capped to maintain price stability. The Iran war, and the prolonged Hormuz closure it triggered, has accelerated a fundamental fracture within the Gulf’s energy alliance.

“They are clearly preparing for the period after the war. The UAE is preparing for a world after the Iran war where oil demand is in decline, and OPEC’s power will be weaker.”

— Kingsmill Bond, Energy Strategist, Ember Future / Al Jazeera

The Strait of Hormuz remains the fulcrum on which all of this pivots. With Iranian mines, drones, and the retaliatory U.S. naval blockade combining to choke off free navigation through the strait, the UAE’s oil ambitions — regardless of whether it is inside or outside of OPEC — are temporarily throttled. The UAE has been routing a portion of its exports through the Fujairah terminal on the Gulf of Oman, but at 1.7 million barrels per day, that capacity falls well short of its ambitions. When and if the strait reopens, the UAE, unshackled from OPEC quotas, will be positioned to surge production by up to 2 million additional barrels per day, according to economist Adnan Mazarei of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That surge would exert powerful downward pressure on global oil prices — which sounds like good news for American consumers, but only after the damage of the current crisis has already been done.

2. The War No One Voted For — A Timeline of Escalation

To understand the UAE’s decision, one must understand the sequence of decisions — or, more accurately, impulses — that produced this crisis. What follows is not a partisan caricature. It is a documented sequence of events, most of it reported by Republican-friendly outlets alongside the rest of the press.

February 28, 2026

Trump bombs Iran without Congressional authorization and, according to reporting, without a clearly articulated plan to protect the Strait of Hormuz — the chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s energy supply passes. Hostilities begin.

Early March 2026

Gas prices begin spiking nationwide. Energy Secretary Wright tells CBS’s Face the Nation that there will be “a temporary period of elevated” energy prices — the first of many reassurances that have proven false.

April 7, 2026 — Easter Sunday

Trump posts a threat to bomb Iran’s civilian power plants and bridges — actions legal experts identify as potential war crimes under international law. The post triggers bipartisan calls for the 25th Amendment. Hours later, he agrees to a two-week ceasefire after Iran offers to reopen the strait.

April 12, 2026

Trump orders a U.S. Navy blockade of Iranian ports, further restricting Hormuz passage. Oil tops $100 a barrel. Gas prices reach $4.12 per gallon on average — up 38% since the war began, according to AAA.

April 23, 2026

Trump tells the American public they should expect higher gas prices “for a little while.” He says he is “in no rush” to make a peace deal with Tehran. A CNBC survey of 1,000 Americans finds nearly 80% have changed their spending habits due to pain at the pump.

April 28, 2026

The UAE announces its departure from OPEC, effective May 1st — a direct consequence of the war’s reshaping of Gulf energy alliances and the bloc’s internal cohesion.

May 1, 2026

Trump tells Congress hostilities in Iran “have terminated” — a claim made on the same day the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day deadline expires, with no Congressional authorization ever having been sought.

3. What This Costs the Average American — Right Now

The White House has argued, repeatedly and incorrectly, that America’s domestic oil production insulates its citizens from global price shocks. It does not. As Rosemary Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities and author of the book Black Gold and Blackmail, explained in Responsible Statecraft, U.S. oil is sold into a global market, and global prices are set by the interplay of global supply and demand. The Hormuz closure has removed roughly 10 million barrels per day from that global market. Every country attached to that market — including the United States — pays higher prices as a result, regardless of whether it consumes Persian Gulf oil directly.

The ripple effects are already visible in the data. California Governor Gavin Newsom has documented that gas prices have jumped more than $1.19 per gallon in the median state since the war began — and seven states have seen larger increases than California. Consumer prices overall rose 3.3% in March year-over-year. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index registered its lowest reading on record in April. The International Energy Agency has called this the “most severe oil supply shock in history.”

At the Pump

Gas prices hit their highest level nationally since 2022 — up 38% from the war’s start and averaging over $4 per gallon, per AAA data cited by CNBC. Every state in the nation is above pre-war prices.

Consumer Spending

A CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 1,000 Americans (April 15–19) found nearly 80% have changed spending habits in response to elevated gas prices. A majority expect prices to remain elevated for at least six months.

Inflation & Sentiment

Consumer prices rose 3.3% in March from a year earlier — the biggest annual increase since May 2024, per California Governor’s Office. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index hit its lowest recorded level in April.

Cascading Costs

It is not just gasoline. As CNN Business reports, fertilizer, helium, sulfur, and natural gas also transit Hormuz — meaning food prices, semiconductor costs, and medical care costs face compounding pressure. Chief economist Joe Brusuelas of RSM US has warned: “Time is not the ally of the American economy.”

Recession Risk

Economist Kelanic notes in Responsible Statecraft that 10 of the 12 post-WWII U.S. recessions were immediately preceded by an oil price spike. The U.S. economy burns more oil per unit of economic output than peer nations — meaning it is disproportionately vulnerable to exactly this kind of shock.

Trump’s Own Admission

On April 23, Trump told the country that gas prices “could be the same or maybe a little bit higher” by November — and confirmed on April 12 that he was “the one that kept it closed.” The President of the United States acknowledged, without apparent regret, that he is personally responsible for the closure of the strait.

4. Leadership, or Its Absence

The question of leadership is not one this editorial board raises lightly. But the record demands it be raised plainly.

Trump launched a war against Iran on February 28 without Congressional authorization, as required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. He has not sought that authorization in the sixty days since — and when pressed at the White House on May 1, he dismissed the requirement by saying he would not seek it “because it’s never been sought before.” That is historically false. It is also constitutionally irrelevant: the law requires it regardless of precedent.

He has described wanting to bomb civilian power plants and bridges — actions that legal scholars and military experts have characterized as potential war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. He threatened, on Easter Sunday, that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” He said of Iranian civilians, “when they don’t hear bombs go up, they’re upset.” He reportedly received an offer from Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a move that would immediately begin relieving the economic pressure on American families — and he declined it, explaining that keeping the strait closed ratchets up financial pressure for a deal. In doing so, he is using American consumers as leverage in his own negotiating strategy, with no stated timeline and no stated threshold for success.

“They came to us and they said, ‘We will agree to open the strait.’ So I’m the one that kept it closed.”

— President Donald Trump, April 23, 2026 / CNBC

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer noted after the brief ceasefire that Trump appeared to be “desperately searching for any sort of exit ramp from his ridiculous bluster.” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon described Trump’s Easter threat as “the words of a frustrated and immoral madman.” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut wrote that Trump’s threats to eradicate a civilization were actions that “no President in control of his senses would” make in a public post. And these are not fringe voices: they represent the considered judgments of members of the United States Senate who have access to classified intelligence briefings.

Meanwhile, the UAE’s departure from OPEC is the most concrete geopolitical proof yet that American allies — even those who benefit from U.S. military protection and signed the Abraham Accords — are now making long-term strategic calculations that account for American unpredictability as a permanent variable, not a temporary one. When partners begin planning for “the world after the Iran war” without consulting Washington, it means they no longer trust Washington to be the stable hand on the wheel.

Get Involved Today

Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.

5. The OPEC Fracture and What Comes Next

The UAE’s departure is not merely symbolic. It removes from OPEC one of the few members with meaningful spare production capacity — the kind that allows the cartel to respond to supply shocks. The UAE’s exit also creates a precedent. Economist Mazarei of PIIE has warned that other OPEC members may follow, which “will increase downward pressure on oil prices.” In the longer run, this is good for consumers. But it also means the architecture of global energy governance, built over sixty years, is fracturing — and it is fracturing in the specific context of an unplanned American war with no exit strategy.

Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, noted that the UAE’s exit “prompts the question whether there will be more competition than cooperation in the region and what the governance of the energy markets will look like.” That is a question that should have been asked before the first bomb dropped on February 28. It was not. No evidence has emerged that the Trump administration conducted any serious analysis of second-order effects on global energy markets before initiating hostilities. The cost of that omission is now being distributed across every American household, every small business that pays for fuel, every family that must choose between a tank of gas and a bag of groceries.

The Provision the Founders Left for Exactly This Moment

What Section 4 of the 25th Amendment Actually Does: Ratified in 1967, the 25th Amendment’s Section 4 provides the constitutional mechanism for the involuntary removal of a president determined to be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. It requires: (1) a written declaration by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet; (2) immediate transmission to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate; and (3) if the president contests the declaration, a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress to sustain removal. It has never been invoked. It was written precisely for the possibility that a president might be constitutionally incapacitated while still physically present in the White House.

Who Has Called for It: The calls came not only from the left but from across the political spectrum, in a coalition without modern precedent:

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) was first, calling Trump “a deranged lunatic and a national security threat to our country and the rest of the world.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called on the House to begin impeachment: “The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President. Or, the cabinet and Vice President must invoke the 25th Amendment.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) stated: “No President in control of his senses would publicly promise to eradicate an entire civilization.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), member of the House Armed Services Committee: “We need to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our constitution and the Geneva Conventions.”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): “If the Cabinet is not willing to invoke the 25th Amendment and restore sanity, Republicans must reconvene Congress to end this war.”
Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), once among Trump’s most loyal defenders, posted “25TH AMENDMENT!!!” and called his threats “evil and madness.”
Tucker Carlson, on his own program, said Trump was threatening “a war crime, a moral crime” — language that would have been unthinkable from him eighteen months ago.

The Constitutional Argument: A president who threatens to destroy a civilization’s civilian infrastructure, who admits to personally prolonging an energy crisis afflicting his own citizens, who launched a war without Congressional authorization and refuses to seek it, and who proposes using American consumers as negotiating leverage — that president presents a factual record consistent with what Section 4 was designed to address: not medical incapacitation in the traditional sense, but the absence of the rational, law-bounded judgment that the office requires.

The Practical Barriers — and Why They Don’t Resolve the Question: The barriers are real. Vice President JD Vance has publicly supported the war and praised Trump repeatedly. No Cabinet member has broken ranks. Republicans control both chambers, making a two-thirds sustaining vote an extraordinary challenge. None of that changes the constitutional logic. The amendment exists. More than seventy lawmakers have invoked it. Even former allies of the President have called for it. The institutional cowardice required to ignore that fact is itself a form of constitutional failure — one the history books will not be forgiving about.

6. The Geopolitical Price of Impulsive Power

Trump has, in the past, accused OPEC of “ripping off the rest of the world” by inflating oil prices. He has linked American military protection of Gulf states to their oil pricing decisions, arguing that Gulf nations “exploit this by imposing high oil prices” while relying on U.S. defense. The irony is that it is now Trump’s own war that has produced the most severe oil supply shock in recorded history — and it is American families, not the Gulf states, absorbing the punishment.

The UAE’s departure from OPEC is, in its own way, a bet that the world will be better off without the structures that assumed U.S. strategic consistency. Abu Dhabi is not signaling friendship with Washington; it is signaling the calculation that American power is now a variable to be managed rather than an anchor to be trusted. That is the real geopolitical cost of sixty-one days of impulsive decision-making. It is a cost that no subsequent trade deal, no future ceasefire, and no Truth Social post can fully erase.

Editorial Conclusion

The UAE did not leave OPEC because its own economic logic demanded it at this precise moment. It left because Trump’s war of choice shattered the energy order that once gave Gulf alliances their coherence, and because Abu Dhabi — watching a president who boasts of keeping a global chokepoint closed while his own citizens pay historic prices at the pump — has concluded that American strategic reliability is no longer a fixed coordinate. More than seventy lawmakers, from the progressive left to the Trumpist right, have called for the invocation of the 25th Amendment — not as a partisan maneuver, but because the documented record of this presidency’s Iran decision-making meets the constitutional threshold the amendment was designed for. That threshold is not about party. It is about whether the person holding the most consequential job in the world is exercising judgment bounded by law, reality, and the welfare of the American people. On the current evidence, the answer is no. The Cabinet has a constitutional tool. The Congress has a constitutional tool. The question is no longer whether those tools exist. The question is whether those who hold them possess the courage to use them before the bill — already $1.19 per gallon higher than it should be, already borne by 80% of American families who have cut their spending — grows any larger.