5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate
Trump's Iran War Has Already Cost Americans Over $40 Billion Extra on Gas and Diesel
"This data shows that energy price shocks function as an economy-wide, unacknowledged tax on households, with costs comparable to large federal programs and policies," said the Climate Solutions Lab director.
May 18, 2026
An analysis released Monday by Brown University researchers shows President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran has cost American consumers over $40 billion more at the fuel pump since late February.
Iran has responded to the US-Israeli aggression by restricting ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which has limited the trading of fertilizer and fuel. The International Energy Agency's executive director warned Monday that the world only has weeks' worth of oil reserves left.
With the trade route largely closed, including during the current ceasefire, fuel prices around the world have soared. As of Monday, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $4.515. Brown's Climate Solutions Lab and Costs of War Project have launched an online tool to track the rising costs for US consumers.
So far, according to the tool, price hikes tied to the war have cost Americans over $41.9 billion extra for diesel ($18.66 billion) and gas ($23.28 billion), based on prewar data, or an average of more than $320 per US household.
"This data shows that energy price shocks function as an economy-wide, unacknowledged tax on households, with costs comparable to large federal programs and policies," said Jeff Colgan, director of the Climate Solutions Lab, in a statement.
The new research brief from Brown highlights how that money could have been spent to improve Americans' lives. For example, that $40 billion "could pay for the entire federal Bridge Investment Program announced in 2024 to repair, restore, and modernize over 10,200 of the nation's bridges."
The full figure also exceeds "the estimated cost of completely redoing the US air traffic control system ($31.5 billion)," the brief states. It's also two times the cost of the Biden administration's proposed electric vehicle charging and electrification programs ($18.9 billion).
"Rising fuel costs are just one of the many financial costs of this war," noted Costs of War director Stephanie Savell. "Official estimates of Iran War costs are just scratching the surface of the actual burdens Americans will face because of it."
Researchers, policymakers, and other critics have been sounding the alarm about the various costs of Trump's war—including human lives lost, infrastructure damage in the Middle East, and rising prices around the world—throughout the conflict.
Earlier this month, a report from the office of US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) projected that if gas prices remain at their current level, it will cost Americans an extra $73.06 per month, or $876 per year, to fill up just one vehicle.
An analysis published Friday from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress stressed that the increased fuel and fertilizer prices are hitting rural families and farmers—which are key to Trump's base—particularly hard.
Globally, during the first month of the war, consumers and businesses lost up to $111.6 billion due to rising fuel prices, according to the climate group 350.org—which emphasized that its estimate did not account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertilizer and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility."
"Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies," 350.org chief executive Anne Jellema said at the time, "while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
In his public comments, the president has repeatedly made clear that he does not care about how his war impacts the public. Last week, when asked about how much "Americans' financial situations" were on his mind as he tries to negotiate an end to the conflict, Trump said, "Not even a little bit."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump ‘Extrajudicially’ Blocks All New US Wind Projects—Which Could Power 15M Homes Amid Energy Crisis
"Electricity costs are slamming Americans as a result of a not-so-covert Trump plan to stall or block inexpensive clean energy," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
May 08, 2026
As oil prices soar, driving up gas and electric bills and straining Americans' wallets, the Trump administration is "extrajudicially blocking" all new wind energy projects in the United States through the US Department of Defense, according to recent reports.
The Financial Times reported over the weekend that as part of the president's "crusade against renewable energy," the department had stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects on private lands—including ones awaiting final sign-off, others in the midst of negotiations, and some that would not typically need oversight from the department at all, according to the American Clean Power Association (ACP).
The Associated Press then reported on Thursday that the number of blocked projects was as high as 250 and that they spanned more than 30 states.
In total, the projects could produce about 30 gigawatts of energy, enough to power 15 million American homes, according to FT.
Trump, who has called wind power the "worst form of energy" and said his "goal is to not let any windmill be built” in the US, has tried many methods to kill the industry, all of which have been struck down in court.
"His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop-work orders trying to shut down wind farms was overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal," explained Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman.
But she said that even amid these failures, "renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration" (FAA).
Structures over 200 feet must be approved by the FAA before construction, which involves an assessment by the Defense Department.
Holzman wrote that according to industry insiders, including those at the ACP, "the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions."
But over the past few weeks, Holzman said ACP told her that "this once-routine process has fully deteriorated, and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense... refuses to sign off on anything."
The group said the refusals have been indiscriminate and that they have affected projects where there are "no obvious impacts to military operations."
Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Department of the Interior who served during Trump's first term, told Heatmap that amid continued legal failures, the administration is trying to "find ways to avoid courts altogether" and acting upon "a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
The administration's attempt to strangle the wind industry comes amid ongoing but fragile negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress over permitting reforms that the GOP hopes will speed up approval of fossil fuel projects.
Democrats previously shut down talks in response to the Trump administration halting construction of several wind projects, but said they'd be open to a compromise if the administration agreed to treat renewables fairly.
Last month, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), a leader of the negotiations on the Democratic side, told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that if any deal is to be reached, the Trump administration must create confidence that it will not "slow walk" wind and solar permits.
Heinrich told Heatmap on Thursday that the administration's apparent action to halt wind approvals entirely "undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.”
Heatmap correspondent Matthew Zeitlin remarked: "At no point did Congress say, 'We want to make new wind power illegal.' If someone presented such a bill, it would lose overwhelmingly. But the president is pulling every possible administrative lever he has to functionally ban it."
The Pentagon acknowledged to Heatmap that it is "actively" reviewing land-based wind projects. However, the FAA declined to comment on whether it was effectively banning new wind projects. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said the Pentagon's statement "does not confirm" that a de facto ban is in place.
Efforts to crush clean energy loom especially large amid the ongoing fuel crisis caused by Trump's war in Iran. In addition to causing gas prices to spike to about $4.50/gallon on average, wholesale electricity prices surged by 8.5% in March after the war was launched, according to The Associated Press.
Countries with large amounts of renewable energy production have proven more capable of avoiding massive spikes in energy costs, while the US has seen some of the worst in the world despite Trump's claims that "energy independence" is saving the day.
Wind energy already accounts for about 10% of America's electricity use and is often cheaper to produce in the long run than fossil fuels, not to mention better for the climate.
As high energy prices and inflation have driven the president's approval rating to its lowest level ever, Jordan Weissmann, the editorial director at the Progressive Policy Project, marveled that "Trump is actively raising voters' electric bills because he hates wind turbines."
"This isn’t energy dominance," agreed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). "This is sacrificing American jobs, weakening the American grid, and forcing American families to pay even higher prices."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that "electricity costs are slamming Americans, as a result of a not-so-covert Trump plan to stall or block inexpensive clean energy. Every blocked kilowatt of clean energy comes instead from fossil fuel. Customers' rates go way up, and all that extra cost families pay goes to (cue drumroll) Trump's corrupt fossil fuel donors. It's on purpose."
The Sunrise Movement argued that Trump's war on wind energy is quite consistent with his method of governing, which has often explicitly involved taking actions meant to maximize the profits of the fossil fuel interests that have backed him and his political movement.
"Trump's energy policy has one priority: help his Big Oil donors make a final cash grab before their industry goes extinct," the group said. "If energy prices spike and the climate crisis worsens... well, that's working people's price to pay."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Admin Slammed for Yet Another Move to 'Help Corporate Polluters' Exploit Alaska
One critic called the transfer of 1.4 million acres a "massive giveaway to out-of-state corporations that don't want to be burdened by the federal protections that safeguard our lands, waters, wildlife, and communities."
May 06, 2026
Defenders of the planet took aim at President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday for transferring approximately 1.4 million acres of public lands along the Dalton Utility Corridor from the US Bureau of Land Management to the state of Alaska.
"This corridor encompasses some of Alaska’s most critical transportation and energy assets, including portions of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System corridor, the Dalton Highway, and proposed routes for the Ambler Road and Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects," the US Department of the Interior noted in a statement, framing the move as part of DOI's commitment to the Alaska Statehood Act, as well as orders issued by Trump and the agency's secretary, Doug Burgum.
As Burgum and Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy cheered the development on Wednesday, Andrea Feniger, director of the state's Sierra Club chapter, declared that "this is less a transfer to Alaskans than a massive giveaway to out-of-state corporations that don't want to be burdened by the federal protections that safeguard our lands, waters, wildlife, and communities."
"Gov. Dunleavy has repeatedly shown he is more interested in helping the Trump administration and fossil fuel executives exploit Alaska than standing up for the people who actually live here," Feniger said. "These companies will not be satisfied until every corner of our state is opened to industrial development and short-term profit, regardless of the permanent damage done to the wild places, subsistence traditions, and communities that make Alaska unique. Alaskans deserve leaders who will protect these lands for future generations, not politicians willing to hand them over to corporate polluters."
Bloomberg reported that "Alaska's acquisition along the highway north of Fairbanks is part of 2.1 million acres" that Burgum offered earlier this year, after revoking a pair of decades-old orders. In March, a coalition of environmental groups, including Trustees for Alaska, filed a federal lawsuit over the secretary "unlawfully removing federal protections."
While Alaska filed a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday, Bridget Psarianos, senior staff attorney at Trustees for Alaska, told Bloomberg that the land transfer is illegal. She also said that "the interior secretary broke the law when removing federal protections for over 2 million acres of public lands in February without hearings in local communities, without a public comment period, and without addressing that decision's impacts on land, water, and subsistence users."
Other groups supporting that suit include the Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club, whose director of conservation, Dan Ritzman, condemned Wednesday's transfer.
"This action will only help corporate polluters transform Alaska into an industrial wasteland—destroying irreplaceable landscapes for the sake of expanding the portfolios of mining and oil and gas companies that will never have to live with the consequences of this destruction," Ritzman stressed. "This decision completely ignores the wishes of local communities and tribes that depend upon these untouched areas for their livelihoods, cultures, and regional identities."
"Alaska is home to some of the country's last true wild places, and projects like Alaska LNG and the Ambler Road threaten irreversible damage to these precious landscapes, the wildlife that depend on them, and the communities that have stewarded them for generations," he added. "These lands belong to all Americans, not corporate special interests looking to exploit them for short-term profit. We are fighting this in court and will continue opposing any other attempts to sacrifice Alaska's public lands for the benefit of polluters and extractive industries."
Rebecca Noblin, an Alaska senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, similarly told E&E News that "handing this incredible stretch of federal public lands over to the state puts the communities, fish, and wildlife who live there in danger."
"Alaska officials envision bulldozing the area for a private industrial mining road and the LNG pipeline boondoggle," Noblin said. "We're fighting this transfer of our federal public lands in court, and we'll keep standing up for Alaska's wild places."
Climate and conservation groups have also recently sounded the alarm about Interior's forthcoming fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain, and warned—in the words of Kristen Monsell, the oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity—that that Trump's "ridiculously reckless" plan to dramatically expand offshore drilling, including near Alaska, "could cause thousands of new oil spills, threatening almost every US coast."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Shame! Shame! Shame!': Local Residents Furious After Shark Tank Billionaire's Data Center Approved in Utah
The project, which residents were informed of just last week, is expected to more than double Utah’s electricity usage, hike its carbon footprint by 50%, and potentially drain more water from the depleted Great Salt Lake.
May 05, 2026
County commissioners in Box Elder County, Utah, were deluged with chants of "Shame! Shame! Shame!" from a crowd of hundreds on Monday night as they voted unanimously to move forward with a sprawling "hyperscale" artificial intelligence data center project that many residents fear will cause energy prices to soar and imperil water access.
The project, known by state officials as "Stratos," was proposed by the celebrity venture capitalist Kevin O'Leary and has been rushed along by Utah's Military Installation Development Authority, which recently approved a gigantic energy tax break for the program to help "lure" the billionaire "Shark Tank" investor.
The development, dubbed "Wonder Valley" after O'Leary's "Mr. Wonderful" TV persona, would span more than 40,000 acres of northern Utah—more than two and a half times the size of Manhattan—and would consume more than twice the electricity currently used by the entire state if approved, according to Axios.
CBS 2 KUTV called it "the biggest thing in the region since the completion of the first transcontinental railroad." And yet Utahns say they've been given little information about the plan and few opportunities to voice their concerns.
Residents were given short notice before Box Elder commissioners gathered at the county fairgrounds on Monday for a "special" meeting to vote on the project, but an estimated 500 still showed up to voice their displeasure.
They raised fears that they'd have to endure the same dramatic energy price spikes as other states with high concentrations of data centers. Residential utility costs have jumped 13-20% year over year in Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, and New Jersey, a trend attributed to the rollout of data centers in these states.
The developers of the Utah project have emphasized that it will be powered by an on-site natural gas plant, which they claim would limit the impact on utility bills.
However, that still leaves the massive environmental concern, especially since natural gas is almost entirely made of methane, one of the worst planet-heating pollutants.
Kevin Perry, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah, has said that the estimated nine gigawatts of power the center would require, "would increase the carbon dioxide emissions for the state of Utah by more than 50%," meaning "there’s a huge climate footprint associated with that proposal.”
Environmental advocates also warn that the facility will further drain water from the Great Salt Lake amid an already severe drought.
The Salt Lake Tribune has found that Utah's dozens of other data centers consume wildly different amounts of water depending on the technology they use.
The developers of the Box Elder facility have claimed the project will use "zero water turbine" technology that allows it to recycle water, resulting in "net zero" consumption.
But Samantha Hawkins, the communications director for Grow the Flow Utah, a group dedicated to protecting the Great Salt Lake, said it's impossible to know if the developers are telling the truth when they say their facility is designed to limit water usage.
"So far, there’s no publicly available hydrologic analysis or independent review to support those claims," she said, "and there haven’t been any manufacturers, technologies, or contracts cited in relation to the 'zero water turbine' technology."
Even if the centers limit water use, they still need to remain cool, which the Tribune said often requires more energy.
Many of the Utahns who showed up to protest Monday's vote felt they were being kept in the dark about the facility's potential harms and that the plans for the facility, which were not made public until last week, were being kept from them.
“I’m outraged," said Colleen Flanagan, a resident of Sandy who spoke with Fox 13 Salt Lake. "I am absolutely angry that there was no studies done—it just came up out of the community. Nobody knew about it."
Mitchell Tousley, who drove more than an hour from Draper to protest the decision, said, "A project of this scale just absolutely requires public input, and there really hasn’t been."
Deals to build these facilities have often been made in secret, with contract details hidden from the public by nondisclosure agreements that stifle dissent until the project has already been approved. Despite this, these projects have often drawn fearsome backlash from the communities where they are planned. In some cases—like in Virginia late last month, where a 2,100-acre center was set to be built—it has led developers to pull out.
But the commissioners in Box Elder County, who said they'd reviewed more than 2,500 public comments on the proposal, appeared unmoved by the outpouring of public concern on Monday night. They said water and air quality issues were not factors in their vote and that the water rights were held by the private landowners.
As the crowd jeered, with chants of "cowards" and "people over profits," Commissioner Boyd Bingham, a Republican, shouted them down.
“For hell’s sakes, grow up,” he yelled. “This is beyond a joke.” The commissioners then left the room and addressed the crowd via a virtual meeting.
In a video response to Monday night's protest, O'Leary said: "I’m the only developer of data centers on Earth that graduated from environmental studies. I'm pretty aware of what these concerns are. They are around air, water use, heat, noise pollution. So sustainability is at the heart of what we do in terms of all these proposals."
He claimed without evidence that 90% of the opponents of the data center project were "being bused in" from out of state. He also claimed that the facility would be powered in part by "solar, wind, and batteries," when it is actually powered entirely by natural gas.
Opponents continue to characterize Stratos as a billionaire vanity project to loot Utah's vast natural resources with little consideration for how it will affect residents.
Utah State University physics professor Robert Davies told Fox 13 that the Great Salt Lake "is occupied by amazing living systems" and that "projects like this go into environments like this and scrape the living systems right off the face of the Earth.”
He said, “This is a private enterprise that is coming in to extract from our natural wealth and pipe it out of the state… and leave us with a few crumbs.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular