Okay, show me the exact moment Trump concocted the renaming to "freedom gas" and "molecules of US freedom".

While we can't be certain, it's more likely to be deliberate. A coincidence is a stretch given how out of character such verbiage is for the DoE and how 2 different people spoke very similarly to Trump on the same day.  I'd bet money it was coordinated between the two authors. 

I didn't assert that he did.... And it's besides the point anyway.
The point you seem to miss is that he appointed the people that did, who in turn follow trumps and the republican party guideline and stance on these kinds of issues... And thus Trump is partly to blame.

Not spoke to Trump on the same day but spoke similarly to Trump (as in used his brand of verbiage) on the same day.  What are the odds that two high level DoE executives would use 'freedom' as a descriptor for natural gas and hydrocarbons on the same day?

Lol.  Are you aware that this is my thread?  I quoted them directly from their own Press Release.

Now let's include the rest of the quotes:

"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide."

"Approval of additional LNG exports from Freeport LNG furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting American energy, American jobs, and the American economy. Further, increased supplies of U.S. natural gas on the world market are critical to advancing clean energy and the energy security of our allies around the globe. With the U.S. in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world,"

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-authorizes-additional-lng-exports-freeport-lng

I feel there's a context that has been removed in your original quotations.

From Slate: "Freedom gas. It appears that turn of phrase originated earlier this month, when Secretary of Energy Rick Perry signed an order aimed at doubling U.S. liquefied natural gas shipments to Europe. At a press briefing in Brussels, he explained that the move would help European nations diversify their energy supply away from Russia, the region’s major supplier of gas. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he said. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” Afterward, a cheeky reporter from EURACTIV asked whether “freedom gas” would be a correct way to describe the new fuel shipments. “I think you may be correct in your observation,” an apparently inspired Perry responded."

Not just Russia but the USSR fought Nazi Germany as did Britain and the US. D-Day landings were conducted mainly by British, US, and Canadian forces.

You wanna talk history?

You are aware that Russia and USSR are basically the same thing?  Sure they were called USSR / Soviet Union because it was union of multiple Soviet states.  However, Russia and USSR are pretty much interchangeable and historians often refer to it just as Russia when talking about the USSR during WW2.  So you are semi correct stating not just Russia but entire USSR (Ukraine, etc) fought the Germans but it just looks awkward used in your sentence since they were basically the same thing.  Also, not everyone within the USSR liked Russia such as some Cossacks in Ukraine defected to the German side yet the majority still didn't join the Germans even though they hated the Russians from past grievances.

My main point was Russia (USSR) took the brunt of the fighting and if Hitler didn't invade Russia or waited another year or two where he could ensure the campaign would end before winter or least be prepared for winter then it would have been a different story.  It was only till after the Soviets turned the Germans on their heels did we even think about preforming D Day invasions.  USA, Britain, Canada and others lost a lot of life fighting the Nazis however the death toll between Germany and Russia makes that fighting look very tiny in comparison.

"More Soviet citizens died during World War II than those of all other countries combined. Nazi ideology considered Slavs to be "subhuman" and German forces committed ethnically targeted mass murder. Civilians were rounded up and burned alive or shot in squads in many cities conquered by the Nazis, around 27 million civilians and military personal perished during the war

8 million Red Army troops died facing the Germans and their allies in the Eastern Front. The Axis forces themselves had lost over 6 million troops, whether by combat or by wounds, disease, starvation or exposure; many others were seized as POWs and a substantial part of them died in Soviet captivity because of disease or shortage of supplies.

Lend-Lease supplies from the United Kingdom and the United States made very important impact for Soviet military forces. Supply convoys sailed to Soviet ports that were patrolled by Nazi U-boats. Allied activities before D-Day may have tied up only a few divisions in actual fighting, but many more were forced to guard lonely coasts against raids that never came or to man anti-aircraft guns throughout Nazi-controlled Europe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_theatre_of_World_War_II

So basically if Germany defeated the Russians or never invaded Russia then the D Day landings would have never happened or would have failed.  Hitler was a terrible commander and he kept centralizing all decisions through him especially towards the end of the war (another reason why D Day landings succeeded because they were too afraid to awake Hitler and the Panzer divisions were held back which could have crushed the beach landings and pushed the allies back into the English Channel) which only led to more military defeats.  He became hot headed with early military victories (Manstein's plan was actually reason why France fell so easily) thinking he was some great leader when he pretty much borrowed most plans from commanders and at the end of the war he was for most part ignoring the generals while making them come up with plans for his fantasies.

And did you notice that is irrelevant?  Doesn't matter if a EURACTIV reporter or Borat said it first, the DoE used it in an official press release with direct quotes from 2 top level executives. 

Further, I guarantee you that the phrase "freedom gas" was probably used many times in the past by a 'cheeky' reporter or protestor or even a forum poster.  The fact is the DoE used it...officially.