SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gas prices
Warren's Trump Inflation Tracker Reveals Pain Caused by 'Failed Economic Agenda' of GOP
"Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he has spent his presidency creating an affordability crisis, and now he's calling his self-made crisis a hoax."
Oct 07, 2026
With the US midterm elections just weeks away and control of Congress up for grabs, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on Wednesday released a tool tracking inflation under Republican President Donald Trump.
"Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he has spent his presidency creating an affordability crisis, and now he's calling his self-made crisis a hoax," said Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a statement. "The Trumpflation Tracker will show families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
The tracker shows not only cumulative inflation since December 2024, the month before Trump returned to office—it's up 5.2%— but also limited job growth during his second term, the impact of his broken promise to cap credit card interest rates, falling wages since he launched an illegal war on Iran in February, mortgage rate increases, and rising household debt.
The tool also highlights the country's affordability crisis, detailing how costs have skyrocketed for childcare, electricity, gasoline, groceries, healthcare, and rent, with the average US household paying over $3,000 more.
As Trump rallies behind efforts to build more energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, Warren's tracker shows that residential electricity prices are up 12.7% during this term, with the average US household paying $222 more.
Last year, congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed a budget package that cut government healthcare programs and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Now, per the new tool, healthcare costs are up 14.6%.
Prices for gas and diesel have skyrocketed since Trump and the Israeli military started bombing Iran, but the US president has dismissed concerns, claiming that paying $4 at the pump is "not very high" and is worthwhile to prevent the Middle Eastern nation from building a nuclear weapon—which the US intelligence community concluded, before the war, that Tehran wasn't trying to do.
Warren's tracker puts the gas surge at 43.7% since December 2024, with an average cost of over $750 per household. The senator plans to have the panel's economic experts update the figures on a monthly basis, as more data becomes available.
The Century Foundation's president, Julie Margetta Morgan, applauded the committee "for doing the math on this," writing on social media that "the Trump administration continues to claim that the economy is strong, but this tracker shows clearly just how much families are being squeezed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ken Paxton Blames Trump's Illegal War for His Political Woes in Yet Another Leaked Recording
"When it's over $6 per gallon for diesel... people are feeling the pinch."
Oct 07, 2026
Ken Paxton, the Republican Party's nominee for the US Senate in Texas, blamed President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran for his political woes in a leaked recording published by Axios on Wednesday.
In the recording, which was made during a private meeting with donors and lobbyists last month, Paxton was asked by an attendee which issues were "dragging" his campaign.
"It's the war, it's gas prices, it's diesel," the Texas attorney general responded. "When it's over $6 per gallon for diesel... people are feeling the pinch."
Paxton added that concerns about affordability were "by far our biggest problem" and "why we're having a hard time with the numbers."
Later in the recording, an attendee pointed out to Paxton that he "can't stop the war," to which Paxton replied, "Right."
"So many factors in this federal race are uncontrollable," Paxton explained. "I don't make the decisions, and I don't... know what's behind some of the decisions."
If Paxton were elected to the US Senate, he could vote for a war powers resolution to compel Trump to end the war, which was launched in February without congressional authorization.
This is now the third leaked recording of Paxton to emerge in recent weeks. Paxton is facing Democratic nominee James Talarico in November.
In a recording leaked to Politico on Monday, Paxton lamented that he has lost control of his campaign's messaging, which he said was being dictated from Washington, DC.
The New York Times last month published a Paxton recording in which he admitted that Trump's big midterm convention held in Dallas hurt his campaign.
“The numbers—when we did that convention—it dropped our numbers,” Paxton said. “Everybody’s numbers dropped. Right now, yeah, not good.”
Veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod predicted that Trump would not be pleased by Paxton once again placing blame on the president's decisions for his political misfortunes.
"Next to the war and the tariffs," Axelrod wrote in a Wednesday social media post, "anointing Ken Paxton as the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Texas may turn out to be [Trump's] worst political decision and the one he most regrets."
John Huffman, the former Republican mayor of Southlake, Texas, wrote that, while Trump may not want to hear it, Paxton's assessment of the political environment was correct.
"The war, gas prices, higher cost of living etc., are all making this cycle very difficult for Republicans," Huffman argued. "In a normal year, even a candidate as broken as Paxton could eke out a W in Texas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Cost of War Comes Due Before the Ballot
You can vote for or against the people in charge without having had real control over decisions they already made. The decision comes first. The costs spread through society. Only later do voters get to judge the officials still managing the consequences.
Oct 05, 2026
On September 29, the Energy Department said it would make up to 40 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve available through an exchange intended to stabilize oil supply. The move was a reminder of something easy to miss in debates over the Iran war: Its costs do not stay on the battlefield. American households can start paying them well before voters get a chance to judge the decisions behind them.
War is usually pictured through missiles, airstrikes, casualties, and ruined cities. Yet some of the burden can surface thousands of miles from the fighting—in gas prices, shipping costs, grocery bills, and whatever is left in a family’s bank account at the end of the month.
The war with Iran has made that connection hard to ignore. When oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted, the shock moves through global energy markets and reaches the United States. In September, the International Energy Agency reported that US diesel-gasoil prices had surpassed $200 a barrel in early September, 94% above prewar levels. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) later put average retail diesel at $6.29 a gallon on September 14.
Someone carrying the cost in a gas bill, heating bill, or grocery receipt did not necessarily have any meaningful say in the decision that created it.
Diesel is more than another number at the pump. Trucks run on it. Farms rely on it. Factories and shipping companies use it. The EIA notes that diesel prices reflect crude oil costs, refining margins, distribution expenses, taxes, and global supply conditions. It also warns that disruptions to major oil trade routes can bring shortages, shipping delays, and higher petroleum prices. Once fuel gets more expensive, the increase moves through the supply chain.
For some families, the effect is more direct. If your home is heated with fuel, the war can appear on the heating bill. A household with no one fighting—and no direct voice in the decision to go to war—can still pay part of the price from its own paycheck.
Those costs are not shared evenly. A higher energy bill may be manageable for one household and a serious strain for another. Department of Energy data show that the national average energy burden for low-income households is about three times that of non-low-income households. Families already spending most of their income on housing, food, and transportation have much less room to absorb another increase.
This is part of war’s cost that a military budget does not capture. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimated in May that higher gasoline and diesel prices since the start of the Iran War had already imposed more than $40 billion in additional costs on American consumers—more than $300 per household.
The burden takes different forms, but it runs through ordinary society. Soldiers pay with their bodies. Taxpayers finance military operations. Workers face higher living costs. Consumers spend more on energy, transportation, and goods. The home front becomes part of the resource base on which war depends—for people, money, labor, and purchasing power.
Once the costs of a political decision begin falling on ordinary citizens, a harder question follows: Who is accountable for that decision?
In a democracy, elections are supposed to provide an answer. Voters can look at what governments and representatives have done and decide whether to keep them in office. The problem is timing: There is often a gap between a major decision and the public’s next chance to respond at the ballot box.
A decision can be made today and its costs can begin tomorrow. Voters may wait months or years before they can judge the people responsible. By then, much of the bill has already been paid, and some of it cannot be recovered.
That delay changes what accountability means. Voting after a decision has already produced consequences is not the same as having a voice before it is made. Elections let citizens respond, but they do not always let them prevent the original decision or recover what was lost because of it.
The 2026 midterms bring that tension into focus. All 435 House seats and roughly one-third of the Senate are up for election. How voters judge the war and the economic pressure around it may shape their judgment of those in power. But someone carrying the cost in a gas bill, heating bill, or grocery receipt did not necessarily have any meaningful say in the decision that created it.
This is the narrower sense in which the idea of a “powerless ballot” matters. It does not mean voting is useless. It points to the distance between the right to vote and the ability to stop a major decision before its costs begin to accumulate.
You can vote for or against the people in charge without having had real control over decisions they already made. The decision comes first. The costs spread through society. Only later do voters get to judge the officials still managing the consequences.
So the cost of war cannot be measured only in military spending, missiles, or battlefield casualties. Some of it is scattered across millions of ordinary lives—in fuel prices, shipping costs, energy bills, food prices, and household budgets.
The fighting may be thousands of miles away, but the bill can still reach your front door. And when you enter the voting booth carrying that same bill, the question is not simply who should run the country. It is how much power the ballot really gives you to hold anyone accountable for a decision whose cost you have already paid.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Sued Over 'Callous Giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto'
One environmental advocate said the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards "will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices."
Oct 02, 2026
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Much Is Trump's Senseless Iran War Costing You Personally?
To be clear, this isn’t the cost of the weapons and soldiers fighting the war, which the Pentagon estimates to be around $44 billion. This is the higher cost you’re paying to fill up your gas tank and to buy products that cost more to move.
Oct 01, 2026
Affordability is getting worse, especially if you have to drive to work or anywhere else.
By late September, the total cost of the higher gas and diesel prices triggered by President Donald Trump’s war against Iran exceeded $103 billion, according to my organization’s analysis of the federal government’s energy data. And those higher prices aren’t showing any sign of slowing. If current trends hold, the price tag by the end of this year will approach $180 billion.
For the average household, that comes out to $750 extra so far, and that figure is on pace to top $1,300 by year’s end.
If life feels more expensive today, that’s because it is.
For a family of four with two drivers, those costs are even higher, topping $1,000 already and slated to be over $1,700 by the end of the year if the war continues. Our interactive tool, online at itep.org/iran-war-fuel-cost, lets you punch in your region and household size to get a sense of how much your family’s costs are rising.
To be clear, this isn’t the cost of the weapons and soldiers fighting the war, which the Pentagon estimates to be around $44 billion. This is the higher cost you’re paying to fill up your gas tank and to buy products that cost more to move.
In a normal year, fall is when drivers get some reprieve at the pump. As summer travel winds down, demand for gas falls, and prices should fall too. But not in 2026.
According to AAA, Americans have never paid this much for gas at this time of year. The national average gas price is $4.47 per gallon as of this writing, and a growing number of states are seeing average prices top $5 per gallon.
Equally troubling is the sky-high price of diesel fuel, which has hit record highs this year and now stands at $6.45 per gallon. When diesel prices rise, the cost of making and shipping products rises too. While most of us don’t buy diesel fuel ourselves, this raises the cost of everything else, bumping up the high rate of inflation we’ve already been seeing.
These soaring fuel costs hurt businesses, local governments, and families.
Businesses have had to shell out $48 billion extra for motor fuel this year, mostly on diesel, because of the Iran War.
Local governments also feel the squeeze. Higher fuel prices make it more expensive to operate school buses, garbage trucks, construction equipment, fire trucks, police cars, and other vehicles and machinery. So far this year our local and state governments have had to pay over $2.7 billion extra for fuel because of the Iran War, and we expect that figure to top $4 billion by the close of the year. This expense, of course, ultimately falls on local taxpayers.
These expenses come on top of other new costs for households like rising interest rates, the Trump administration’s widespread tariffs on products you buy every day, and high healthcare prices, made worse by cuts to government programs like food assistance and Obamacare.
If life feels more expensive today, that’s because it is. The higher price you’re paying for gas because of the Iran War isn’t the whole reason for that. But it sure doesn’t help.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not What I Did': GOP Senator Squirms When Asked Why He Keeps Voting for Trump's Gas Price-Hiking War
"In fact... Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES," said one critic.
Sep 30, 2026
An embattled incumbent Republican senator squirmed on Tuesday when confronted with his multiple votes supporting President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has driven up gas prices across the US.
During a Wednesday interview with local news station WKRC, Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) was asked by reporter James Pilcher about his votes in favor of continuing the war, which the journalist noted has become "pretty unpopular."
"First of all, I didn't, that's not what that vote was, it's not what I did," Husted replied. "Here's the bottom line: These are the people that want higher gas prices right now: Iran, Russia, and the, and the Democrats in Congress. They don't want us to be successful there. They are literally... we are the party that has been, as Republicans, we've wanted more drilling. Like, we have, thank goodness, we have a great supply of domestic fuel right now, or prices would be even higher."
Q: You voted in favor of the war in Iran. It's proven to be pretty unpopular. What do you see as the offramp here?
HUSTED: First of all, I didn't- that's not what that vote was. That's not what I did. Here's the bottom line. These are the people that want higher gas prices right… pic.twitter.com/t4ZEmD0q2f
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2026
Husted—whom polls show is currently trailing his rival, former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)—then baselessly claimed that "Russia, Iran, and Senate Democrats seem to be aligned in seeing prices go up, I'm for prices going down."
The price of energy skyrocketed in the months since Trump attacked Iran without any congressional authorization in February, and the price of diesel fuel last week hit a record high of $6.53 per gallon.
Husted, meanwhile, has voted 14 times against war powers resolutions in the US Senate to compel Trump to end the conflict he started.
Critics of the Ohio Republican were quick to slam him for trying to evade responsibility for the fallout of the Iran War.
In a social media post, author James Surowiecki accused Husted of telling "a blatant lie" when he said he didn't vote to support the war.
"This month, he cast the deciding vote against a war powers resolution in the Senate directing Trump to end the war in Iran," Surowiecki wrote. "So yes, he voted in favor of continuing the war in Iran."
Husted's statement drew a similar rebuke from Kelsie Taggart, vice president of the Democratic advocacy group American Bridge.
"That is, in fact, what that vote was," Taggart wrote, "and Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES."
Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who now advises the US Program at the International Crisis Group, argued that what Husted did was actually "even worse than voting for the Iran War."
"He voted to abnegate Congress' constitutional authority over the use of military force," Finucane explained, "and to allow Trump to wage war based on his own whims."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Consumers Will Pay the Price': Fury as Trump Pushes Through Rule Change to Make Vehicles Less Efficient, More Polluting
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said one environmental lawyer.
Sep 28, 2026
Scientists and environmental advocates are warning that the Trump administration's rollback of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks will not only lead to more pollution but also hurt cash-strapped consumers already reeling from gas price spikes.
The administration announced on Monday that it was weakening the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
Biden administration rules required a 2% annual increase in fuel-efficiency standards, with the goal of bringing most vehicles to an average of 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under President Donald Trump, the annual target has been reduced to just a 1% improvement each year, meaning five years from now the average car would be required to get just under 34.9 mpg.
The Department of Transportation, which finalized the rule, has argued that efficiency standards put an unnecessary burden on carmakers and has projected that lowering them will “reduce the average cost of a new vehicle by $1,300 for American families" and "save the American people $138 billion over the next five years."
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described the Biden-era increase as one that "forced automakers to produce more expensive electric vehicles that American families didn’t want."
But Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Clean Transportation Program, argues that rather than being a benefit to consumers, “the federal government’s decision to gut fuel economy standards is a handout to automakers and oil companies that will strap American consumers already struggling with an affordability crisis.”
His group has estimated that since CAFE standards were first introduced in 2010, they have saved auto owners about $321 billion at the gas pump. And over just the past seven months, during which Trump's war with Iran has caused gas prices to soar around the country, UCS estimates that consumers have saved $32 billion.
"Any small reduction in upfront vehicle costs will be outweighed by higher fuel expenses," Cooke said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) itself estimated in an impact analysis for the rule days ago that, as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas than they would under the 2024 standards, resulting in average lifetime fuel costs of more than $1,600 more per vehicle—more than the administration estimates consumers will save by buying cheaper cars.
Transportation already accounted for about 17% of average US household spending in 2024, the latest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published data. Meanwhile, as the war with Iran has driven up costs, oil companies are reporting record profits. The top eight brought in nearly $93 billion in earnings in the second quarter of this year alone, according to an analysis by The Guardian.
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said Atid Kimelman, an attorney at the NRDC.
Americans won't just spend more money; they'll also produce way more planet-heating greenhouse gases. The standards being rolled back were projected by NHTSA to prevent about 659 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 825,000 metric tons of methane, and roughly 24,000 metric tons of nitrous oxide emissions through 2050.
The Center for Biological Diversity pointed out that the US is already the world's largest oil guzzler, accounting for 20% of global use, and that transportation is the No. 1 consumer of that oil.
"This move spells short- and long-term disaster for people’s health, the planet, and even US automakers who’ll sit on the sidelines while clean cars advance around the world," said Dan Becker, the director of the group's Safe Climate Transport Campaign. "This standard was the biggest single step any nation has taken to save gas, money at the pump, and auto pollution.”
Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy for the League of Conservation Voters, emphasized that fuel efficiency standards are popular with the American public. A nationwide survey last month by the Global Strategy Group found that 73% of voters nationwide said they'd support "reestablishing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks."
"It is no secret that Trump promised handouts to Big Oil in exchange for campaign spending," Davis said, "and he is delivering for those billionaire CEOs and polluters while he hurts working families, American manufacturing competitiveness, public health, and the environment at every turn.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just So You Know, Trump’s Erratic Behavior Makes Life More Expensive for Everyone Else
The basic story is that while the president is apparently having a good time, the rest of the country is paying a big price in the form of higher prices for gas, food, electricity, and many other items, as well as higher interest rates.
Sep 26, 2026
The interest rate on 30-year bonds rose to 5.4%, the highest rate since July of 2003. It’s not clear exactly why the rate rose, but expectations of higher inflation do not seem a plausible explanation. The interest rate on inflation-indexed bonds has been rising pretty much in tandem with the rise on 30-year bonds. This means we are looking at higher real interest rates.
There are several plausible reasons why real interest rates would increase. A standard explanation is higher government budget deficits. I have always been skeptical of any direct link between deficits and interest rates, but if investors believed that the Fed would respond to deficits by pushing the federal funds rate higher in future years, that would lead to higher interest rates, whether or not a larger deficit was directly the cause.
And we are certainly looking at larger budget deficits now than at the start of the year, due to the war on Iran. This has led to large expenditures to fund the war and will almost certainly lead to larger expenditures in the future, as President Donald Trump seeks to replenish depleted weapon stockpiles and reconstruct bases destroyed in the war. He is requesting a budget of $1.5 trillion, almost 5% of GDP, which would be $600 billion more than the last Biden budget.
There is also the Trump-crazy premium. There are many ways in which the world was reasonably predictable before Trump but no longer is.
The trillions of dollars that the hyperscalers plan to spend building data centers also creates huge demand for borrowing. This spending can also play a role in pushing up rates.
There is also the Trump-crazy premium. There are many ways in which the world was reasonably predictable before Trump but no longer is.
Under Trump, US trade agreements are no longer meaningful. He openly ignores them at will, saying they were signed by “dumb” presidents, including the agreements that he negotiated. Trump has also threatened wars or military actions all over the world, including against longstanding US allies like Denmark and Canada. And he has shown a lack of respect for domestic law, repeatedly violating orders from judges when he disagrees with them.
This erratic behavior almost certainly adds a substantial cost to borrowing. While under other presidents it would have been virtually inconceivable the United States would default on its debt, that is no longer the case. It is entirely plausible that Trump would at least selectively default, not paying off the interest and principal to bondholders he didn’t like. As Trump is fond of saying, he can do whatever he wants.
While that may be fun for him, Trump’s erratic behavior makes life more expensive for everyone else. He has pushed mortgage rates over 7%, making homeownership ever more unaffordable. Higher rates also mean that people have to pay more on car loans and credit card debt, as well as the interest rates businesses and state and local governments have to pay.
The basic story is that while Donald Trump is apparently having a good time, the rest of the country is paying a big price in the form of higher prices for gas, food, electricity, and many other items, as well as higher interest rates. Trump apparently hasn’t noticed this reality, and any of his aides who have are too scared to tell him. It’s very MAGA!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Trump-Backed Diesel Export Ban Could Further Drive US Economy Into the Ground
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create."
Sep 23, 2026
In an effort to blunt price hikes from his war with Iran, President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing a 90-day ban on diesel exports from the United States.
The cost of diesel—which is used to power semitrucks, trains, construction and farm equipment, and other large machines—has soared since Trump launched the war at the end of February, prompting Iran to restrict oil shipments through the critical Strait of Hormuz.
As of Wednesday, according to the American Automobile Association, average US diesel prices have jumped to $6.52 per gallon, a 77% increase from last year. Over the past month, as Trump has ramped up hostilities with Iran, prices have risen by 91 cents a gallon, a 16.2% increase.
Heightened diesel prices increase the cost of everything else—including food, transportation, and other energy sources. And while Trump claimed earlier this month to be bringing prices "way down, way, way down,” the latest federal data show consumer prices rising 0.4% in August—four times July’s monthly increase—and 3.4% over the past year.
With the midterms less than two months away and many voters blaming Trump for the strain on their pocketbooks, several GOP members of Congress, including some facing tough Senate races, such as Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (Iowa), have cheered the idea.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump told reporters: "I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel. It could have a little bit of an effect on regular automobile gasoline because when you do that, you know, it’s a sort of a flow. It’s a balance. But no, I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people. I’ve been talking about it.”
But while the plan may help to keep diesel prices down for long enough to help Republicans stop the bleeding before November, some economists are warning that it could make things much worse in the long term.
“The US Gulf Coast would get a temporary pump price dip, at the cost of likely higher coastal prices [elsewhere] and eventually, higher prices for everyone as investment gets scared away," explained Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group and a former White House energy adviser under the administration of former President George W. Bush.
"You would get a short-term, abrupt collapse in pump prices” in some regions, McNally said, but “the US would shatter its reputation as a safe place to invest for a generation.”
Energy economist Philip Verleger said that a ban, even if temporary, "would have the same long-term effect as President [Richard] Nixon’s soybean embargo: the world would no longer view the United States as a dependable source.”
Speaking to Reuters, Verleger warned that in an already undersupplied market, removing US barrels could potentially double global prices.
But the short term seems to be all Trump and those around him pushing the ban are considering. An oil industry executive who discussed the proposed ban with White House officials told Politico that Trump viewed any fallout as “a December problem.”
He said that "cooler heads" in the White House have been "overpowered" by the "political camp" that has a "sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump."
Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, argued that there was a much simpler solution: ending the war that has caused oil prices to spike in the first place.
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create," Stockman said. "The US exports about 5% of global diesel, and a ban risks turning a severe shortage into a global economic disaster."
"It could send international prices soaring, drive up the cost of food, fertilizer, and essential goods, deepen hunger, and push already-struggling economies toward recession," he continued. "At the same time, it would likely do nothing for people in the US, as refineries would cut production and gasoline prices would rise even further."
He said, "Congress should use its constitutional powers to stop Trump’s war, tax the oil industry’s soaring windfall profits, and support farmers and other hard-hit sectors, and accelerate renewable energy and electrification, not hoard fuel and force the rest of the world to pay the price.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
A War Without the Name: The Billion-Dollar Cost of America’s Iran Conflict
Military operations, the consumption of munitions, the deployment of forces, equipment losses, and economic consequences do not disappear because of a change in terminology.
Sep 22, 2026
The Trump administration does not call it a war. But a recent estimate of the operation’s costs shows that the US military campaign against Iran has already generated at least $38 billion in Department of Defense expenses, with additional costs continuing to accumulate. While officials have avoided using the term “war,” the financial consequences increasingly resemble those of a prolonged military campaign.
Vice President JD Vance has said he does not describe the situation as a war, and President Donald Trump himself, responding to the same question on September 4, 2026, referred to it as a “military conflict” rather than “a big deal” for America. This is despite the fact that Trump has at other times explicitly used the word “war.”
But the issue is not merely a matter of wording. What is unfolding in Washington is the gap between the name the administration chooses for the operation and its real costs. Military operations, the consumption of munitions, the deployment of forces, equipment losses, and economic consequences do not disappear because of a change in terminology.
A conflict without a name can still produce a bill. Part of that bill is paid through public spending; part through higher energy and consumer costs; and part through long-term consequences for equipment, military stockpiles, and the economy.
The operation known as “Operation Epic Fury,” from February 2026 through August 1, has already cost the Department of Defense at least about $38 billion, according to a recent cost assessment. However, this figure does not represent the full cost of the conflict.
The estimate covers only operational, logistical, and support expenses and does not include costs from other parts of the government or certain expenses already included in existing military budgets. It also projects that if the conflict continues at a relatively low intensity, approximately $2 billion more will be added to military costs each month, while a return to a higher operational tempo could increase that figure to about $3 billion per month.
The broader cost, however, extends beyond government accounts. A recent analysis of energy costs estimates that additional gasoline and diesel expenses paid by American consumers from the beginning of the conflict on February 28, 2026 through Labor Day on September 7, exceeded $100 billion. These costs were driven by higher energy prices following disruptions to oil and gas flows and shipping routes in the region.
In practical terms, Americans with no direct connection to foreign policy or military operations still experience part of the cost of the conflict through higher fuel prices, transportation expenses, and the broader cost of goods. The additional cost of gasoline and diesel alone since the beginning of the conflict has surpassed $100 billion.
Beyond energy markets, economists have also attempted to measure how these broader costs affect household finances. One estimate places the combined effects of military spending, higher energy prices, increased food and transportation costs, and interest-rate pressures at approximately $1,200 per typical American household by late July. This figure is not an official bill for individual households, but an estimate of the direct and indirect economic effects of the conflict.
The importance of this issue grows because these economic pressures have emerged while the Trump administration continues to emphasize maintaining its policy toward Iran. The same cost assessment notes that one of the conflict’s most significant economic effects comes from inflationary pressure caused by reduced oil and gas transit through the Strait of Hormuz and disruptions to shipping routes. The consequences of the operation have therefore extended beyond the battlefield and into key areas of the US economy, including energy prices, inflation, and transportation costs.
This is where the question of naming becomes politically significant. When an administration avoids using the term “war,” the public may perceive the operation as limited, temporary, and low-cost, while available data show a more complicated picture. The distinction between “war” and “military conflict” does not change the financial burden created by military operations or their economic effects.
A substantial portion of the costs associated with the operation also remains uncertain and continues to accumulate. In June, the US government requested a supplemental appropriation of approximately $87.6 billion, including $67.1 billion for the Department of Defense, while future costs are expected to depend on the duration and intensity of the conflict. The uncertainty remains significant because the Defense Department did not provide all requested information.
Ultimately, the central question is not only what word the administration chooses for this operation. The larger issue is whether a military campaign can be separated from its real consequences. For service members involved in the operation, the difference between “war” and “military conflict” does not change the risks they face. For the Pentagon, the cost of weapons, logistics, and deployments remains. And for American households, higher prices remain higher prices regardless of the terminology used.
A conflict without a name can still produce a bill. Part of that bill is paid through public spending; part through higher energy and consumer costs; and part through long-term consequences for equipment, military stockpiles, and the economy. The name a government chooses may shape political debate, but the financial consequences ultimately appear in budgets and everyday life.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy