

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
High gasoline and diesel fuel prices caused by the illegal US war on Iran have cost the average American household roughly $776 in extra spending, according to a real-time tracker.
The global price of oil jumped above $100 per barrel on Wednesday for the first time since July as US President Donald Trump's illegal and deeply unpopular war on Iran continued with no end in sight, imposing an increasingly painful burden on American consumers.
A running tracker maintained by the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimates that US consumers have collectively spent more than $101 billion—roughly $776 per household—extra on gasoline and diesel fuel since the start of the Iran war in late February.
Trump administration officials and the president himself have publicly downplayed high gas prices, suggesting Americans should be grateful they aren't even higher and that the Iran war is worth paying a bit more at the pump. Labor Day weekend saw the highest gas prices ever recorded for this time of the year, according to the American Automobile Association.
The Iran War Energy Cost tracker has surpassed $100 billion. That's $100 billion dollars in extra fuel costs for U.S. households since the start of the war with Iran on February 28, 2026. https://t.co/VsJ1YSSqea pic.twitter.com/s5RARUNNOs
— The Costs of War Project (@CostsOfWar) September 8, 2026
Trump, a billionaire whose fossil fuel stock holdings have grown substantially during the war, predicted earlier this week that oil prices would "drop precipitously" once "we WIN the war with Iran," contradicting his previous statements in which he claimed the US was already victorious.
The president has also repeatedly declined to call the onslaught a "war," even as it has killed thousands of Iranians and at least 18 US servicemembers, and wreaked havoc on the global economy. Last week, Trump called the war "small potatoes."
"Everyday Americans are grappling with gas prices that just keep getting more expensive. Instead of providing any relief to working families, or fixing the mess they created, Republicans are focused on inflating Trump’s ego," Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee's rapid response director, said in a statement on Wednesday, referring to the GOP's "Trumpapalooza" midterm convention.
"Voters will remember who is fighting to lower costs come November," said Witmer.
The latest jump in global oil prices came after the US military said it "forces destroyed five Iranian crude oil carriers" connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The IRGC said it responded by targeting "two US vessels, eight oil tankers, and 10 other ships attempting to pass through the prohibited zone of the Strait of Hormuz."
“The heroic IRGC Navy, in response to the aggression and hostility of the terrorist US military in its attack on five Iranian oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, targeted two US vessels and eight oil tankers in the area, inflicting heavy damage on them,” the IRGC said in a statement.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) noted in a blog post on Tuesday that "disrupted shipping through Hormuz" is one contributor to record-high US fuel prices, whose impacts go far beyond the costs paid by consumers at the gas pump.
"Diesel costs have implications beyond motorists because trucking and freight networks pass higher fuel expenses through the wider economy," NIAC observed. "The effects of constrained energy flows extend well beyond the immediate combat zone."
"Labor Day weekend travelers are facing the highest gas prices ever for this time of year," said the American Automobile Association.
The average price for a gallon of diesel fuel in the United States hit an all-time high average price of $5.85 on Friday as the Trump administration's war on Iran and its resulting disruptions to the global energy market showed no signs of ending.
"Trump did it! Diesel hits a new record high!" economist Dean Baker wrote sardonically on social media.
The Associated Press noted that "because diesel is used for many freight and delivery networks, higher diesel prices mean higher transportation costs for a long list of everyday goods."
According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was just under $4.15 on Friday—up from $3.20 a year ago and an increase of nearly 40% since the US and Israel started bombing Iran in late February, prompting the Middle East country to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for the global oil trade.
"Labor Day weekend travelers are facing the highest gas prices ever for this time of year," AAA said on Thursday. "The national average has never been above $4 per gallon on Labor Day. The current Labor Day record is $3.82, set on September 3, 2012. Even though gasoline demand decreases this time of year, typically bringing down gas prices, this year is different due to the high cost of crude oil."
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement Friday that "working families deserve to enjoy their hard-earned holiday weekends, but Trump and Republicans’ agenda has made everything from gas to groceries more expensive and left families with no breathing room."
"It’s no wonder Americans are rejecting Trump and Republicans," Witmer added, "forcing Trump’s approval ratings to fall to embarrassing lows."
President Donald Trump's White House has thus far responded dismissively to concerns about surging gas prices, even as they appear to pose a significant threat to the Republican Party's chances of retaining control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.
At a rally in New York last month, Trump told Americans that paying "a tiny little bit more for your gasoline" is worth the price for waging the Iran war, which is historically unpopular with the US public.
During a press conference on Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance suggested Americans should be grateful that gas prices aren't even higher.
"Gas, frankly, could’ve been much, much higher were it not for our efforts," said Vance, referring to the administration's attempts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The New Republic's Hafiz Rashid observed that Vance's remarks "belie the fact that the Iran war was arbitrarily and unnecessarily started by the Trump administration."
"There was no threat to the flow of oil and gas or other maritime traffic traversing through the Strait of Hormuz prior to the war," Rashid wrote. "If not for the efforts of President Trump, gas would in fact be much, much, lower."
While the administration claims the Strait is now open and that dozens of vessels carrying millions of barrels of oil are transiting the critical waterway daily, analysts have cast doubt on the assertion. Al Jazeera noted Thursday that "according to marine analytics firm Kpler, just six vessels crossed the Strait on Wednesday, 11 on Tuesday, and five on Monday. It put the 10-day average at 13 vessels per day."
Only about a quarter of respondents to a new poll think the US should have gone to war with Iran, and that the US is winning.
A new University of Massachusetts-Amherst opinion poll, conducted August 21-26, finds profound American disillusionment with President Donald Trump, with his Iran War, and with its economic fallout in their lives.
Apparently the Ellison family’s attempt to drum up support for Donald Trump and his Iran War by buying up CBS News and gutting it as a respected news organization was a costly failure. Likewise, Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp and his various pro-Trump organs, from Fox Cable News to The Wall Street Journal, have not pulled the wool over the public’s eyes in the ways that Murdoch hoped. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted of the effort he expended convincing the American people to go to war with Iran, saying he had a thousand hours on US television , but while he may have prevailed on the gullible and avaricious Trump to fall on that country like a ravenous wolf, he did not succeed in altering the views of the American public on the desirability of such a war. The only significant impact of Netanyahu on most Americans has been to convince them that the Israeli government is a combination of genocidal maniacs and welfare queens that Americans should cut off economically and perhaps even militarily.
The UMass poll asked a weighted sample of respondents how well Trump has handled his Iran War. The response of 55% of those asked this question was “not well at all.” Ouch. Another 13% replied “not too well.” So 68%, over two-thirds, think he has done a piss-poor job on his Iran War, which was his war of choice. Two-thirds is the percentage needed in the Senate to impeach and remove a president, so if our representatives actually mirrored public opinion, Trump would be toast.
That question had to do with Trump’s handling of the war. Asked whether they approved of the war on Iran, a majority, 54%, said they strongly or somewhat disapproved, and another 20% were noncommittal, which I would interpret as not actively supporting the war even if they didn’t particularly oppose it. Those statistics yield a picture of a war that nearly three-fourths of Americans either oppose or about which they just don’t care. It isn’t what the commander of a war would want to hear from his own public.
Trump and the Republicans are always campaigning on being the party of business and therefore the party that knows how to handle the economy, but only a tiny minority, 7%, think Trump is handling the economy very well.
A majority think the war was a mistake and question whether it has made the US safer or forestalled an Iranian bomb.
Another way of putting it is that only about a quarter of respondents think the US should have gone to war with Iran, and that the US is winning.
The UMass report on the opinion poll noted that Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll, said, “Americans are overwhelmingly negative about Trump on the Iran situation.” He continued: “Only 1 in 4 Americans thinks he is handling Iran well. The real divide is increasingly between Trump’s hardcore MAGA base and almost everyone else. Among Republicans who identify very strongly with MAGA, 87% approve of Trump’s handling of Iran. But that falls to 58% among Republicans who are ‘somewhat MAGA’ and just 30% among Republicans who say they are ‘not MAGA at all.’ The more loosely attached Republicans are to the MAGA identity, the more skeptical they are of the war.”
Conducting a war in the Middle East, as even the cowboys in the G. W. Bush administration recognized, requires at least some allies. But Americans don’t think Trump plays well with other children. Asked how he has handled working with allies in global affairs, 52% say “not well at all” and 12% say “not too well,” showing that nearly two-thirds view his foreign policy performance negatively.
Based on this sounding, we can further project that Americans are even more angry about the main fallout of the failed war on Iran, which is high inflation. Fully 80% of respondents said that the Iran War has increased the cost of gasoline and groceries. Asked about how Trump has dealt with inflation, 57% responded, “not well at all.” A further 18% said “not too well.” That is 75%, fully three-fourths, who disapprove of his handling of inflation. Trump and the Republicans are always campaigning on being the party of business and therefore the party that knows how to handle the economy, but only a tiny minority, 7%, think Trump is handling the economy very well, and I presume they are wealthy investors in Trump’s casino stock market. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is up 14-16% so far this year.
Trump wants to play down the connection between rising inflation and gas prices, on the one hand, and his foolish war of choice on the other. But will US voters or the Iranians let him?
Despite the excitement around Donald Trump’s new sanctions and even the US strikes against the Iranian island of Larak just hours ago, much suggests that Trump is not seeking a dramatic ratcheting up of pressure on Iran.
According to reports Sunday, the U.S. military hit Iranian launchers on the island to prevent Tehran from planting new mines in the Strait of Hormuz. This is the first known U.S. strike against the country since Trump announced a ceasefire in July. Details are forthcoming.
Meanwhile, the much-touted “major financial institution” that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised to sanction for dealings with Iran turned out to be nothing more than Egypt’s second-largest bank. Though Banque Misr ranks among the region’s major banks, it is a dwarf beside the multi-trillion-dollar giants of global finance.
It should come as no surprise that there is more bark than bite in Trump’s latest sanctions moves. That is not to say Bessent’s economic warfare won’t hurt ordinary Iranians or squeeze the Iranian economy. It will. But there is little to suggest that the pain will compel Tehran to submit to Trump — or that the sanctions are even designed to inflict significant harm, despite his rhetoric.
Rather, Trump appears to be pursuing a very different gamble: maintaining a low-level conflict until the midterms—neither securing a diplomatic deal nor allowing the situation to deteriorate into full-scale war. A period of relative tranquility that pushes Iran out of the headlines and, in the run-up to the elections, weakens the connection between rising inflation and gas prices, on the one hand, and Trump’s foolish war of choice, on the other.
The D-Day sanctions help create the perception that the U.S. has the upper hand while increasing pressure on Iran. Together with increased traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, they make the status quo more costly for Tehran than for Washington — but not so costly that Iran is incentivized to counter-escalate in the short term.
Rather, it is a slow strangulation designed to ensure that, for the next two months, there is neither headline-grabbing diplomacy nor military escalation.
This gives Tehran little cause for immediate panic. Its response will largely depend on what Washington does next. I see three possible scenarios.
Trump may overshoot, pushing Iran beyond what Tehran deems manageable in the short term. For instance, the strikes against Iranian positions on Larak island will very likely generate an Iranian response. Moreover, if Trump confiscates Iranian oil tankers bound for China, Tehran will almost certainly respond by intensifying attacks on ships using the southern corridor of the Strait, while potentially also targeting energy infrastructure in the GCC. China, too, would likely respond forcefully to such a move. The result would be precisely the kind of escalation Trump wants to avoid over the next two months.
In the second scenario, the D-Day sanctions neither incentivize Iran to counter-escalate in the short term nor alter its medium-term calculations. Tehran reckons that, despite the hype, its closure of the Strait remains sufficient and that the mounting economic pressure on Trump will eventually compel him to return to the table with a more pragmatic posture.
Though this is not the most likely outcome, it helps explain why Iran is investing heavily in regional diplomacy even as all signs point to Trump not wanting a deal at this juncture.
Omani, Pakistani, and Qatari diplomats are engaged in intense diplomacy with Tehran over the Strait. According to my sources, Trump has signaled directly to Iran that he will not lift the blockade even if Tehran reopens the Strait, nor does he favor returning to the earlier Memorandum of Understanding. Again, keeping Iran out of the headlines in the run-up to the elections requires avoiding developments of either kind—military or diplomatic.
By engaging with regional mediators, Tehran achieves three objectives. First, it demonstrates to its domestic public that the war’s prolongation is due to American intransigence, not Iranian inflexibility. As the war drags on and Iranian civilians grow weary, controlling the blame narrative becomes increasingly important to Tehran. Fortunately for Tehran, Trump’s categorical public rejection of diplomacy plays directly into Iran’s hands.
Second, this diplomatic engagement is also crucial for the regional blame game. If the war resumes, who regional states blame matters considerably, particularly because the war will inflict a heavy price on them. Tehran needs to demonstrate to regional governments that Iran is willing to compromise while Trump refuses even to negotiate.
Finally, the current diplomacy builds regional consensus around specific solutions and principles. If Trump returns to the table, an infrastructure of semi-completed agreements with regional buy-in will already be in place — built while Trump voluntarily absented himself. Trump will pay a price if he seeks to unravel the progress the region made while he sulked in the White House.
But the most likely scenario is neither immediate escalation nor a post-midterm return to talks. Rather, in this scenario the Trump administration’s newfound confidence proves warranted: the combination of new sanctions and growing traffic through the southern corridor of the Strait has created a new reality in which Iran is hurting more than the U.S., and its trajectory is becoming increasingly — but not dramatically — negative. Iran will therefore be weaker in a few months, and in a less favorable diplomatic and military position.
While this will incentivize Iran to counter-escalate, Tehran may choose to delay its response and wait for a more opportune moment. If Washington wants to keep things quiet until the midterms, Tehran may conclude that the optimal moment to strike back is two or three weeks before the Congressional elections, maximizing the political damage to Trump.
But Iran may not limit its response to tankers in the Strait. Iranian officials say, both publicly and privately, that they expect the U.S. and Israel to resume the war after the midterms regardless of the impact of the D-Day sanctions. Regional diplomats have largely reached the same conclusion. If sanctions weaken Iran over time while the global economy recovers and adjusts to the new reality in the Strait, a prolonged pause will work against Tehran. Iran may therefore decide to escalate dramatically, taking full advantage of Trump’s perceived vulnerability in the run-up to the elections.
Iran appears encouraged by its performance in the second round of the war and by how quickly Trump halted his attacks. The first round lasted 38 days; the second just 13. Yet more than half of the American casualties were inflicted during the second round, despite it lasting only a third as long.
While only one out of a plethora of variables in this war, the impacts of the second round suggest that American force protection had weakened, interceptor shortages had become more acute, and Iran had learned more from the first round of fighting in February than America did. Tehran appears to have improved both the sophistication of its attacks and the intelligence behind them. Iran had spent decades studying how America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, for the first time, it had direct experience fighting the United States — and Tehran has learned faster than Washington had anticipated.
Still, while Iran’s calculation about Trump’s electoral vulnerability may prove correct, its apparent belief that an election loss will restrain Trump in 2027 may be misplaced. A Trump humiliated at the polls and potentially facing a third impeachment attempt may be forced to play defense at home, but precisely because of his domestic troubles, he may also be incentivized to lash out abroad. Freed from electoral constraints, Trump may be willing to take risks he previously eschewed, including deploying ground troops.
After all, it was in the period following his November 2020 defeat that Trump displayed an unprecedented appetite for risk. Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley feared Trump might either provoke a war with Iran after losing the election or manufacture a domestic crisis to justify using the military and potentially remain in power.
Trump reportedly floated proposals for an attack on Iran, which Milley vehemently opposed. “You're gonna have a fucking war,” he prophetically told Trump. Will there be a General Milley in Trump’s inner circle after the midterms?
"Despite his bluster, Trump has built an economy for billionaires while working families are left in the dust."
Newly released economic data shows that the benefits of President Donald Trump's economy keep accruing to major corporations while US workers get left with scraps.
As noted in an analysis published on Wednesday by Groundwork Collaborative, the latest gross domestic product (GDP) numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) show that workers' wages in the second quarter of 2026 accounted for just 54.7% of national income, the lowest share ever recorded.
Labor compensation once accounted for 60% or higher of GDP over a span of six decades until the start of the Great Recession in 2008. Since then, wages have only risen above 60% of GDP for one year, in 2020, when the federal government sent people stimulus checks and boosted benefits to help get through the economic shutdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
While workers' wages account for an ever-shrinking share of GDP, corporations have seen their fortunes rise. Groundwork Collaborative pointed out that corporate profits last quarter surged by 9.1%, as companies received refunds for the Trump-enacted tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were illegal earlier this year.
According to macroeconomic researcher Eric Basmajian, corporate profits accounted for over 12% of GDP on the quarter, which marks a record high.
In addition to its GDP report, the BEA also released its monthly report for personal consumption expenditures (PCE), which showed overall prices posted a yearly rise of 3.7%, above economists' expectations.
Elizabeth Pancotti, vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, said Trump's tariffs and his illegal war with Iran were big factors in driving up prices in July.
"Today’s report reveals that corporate bosses and Wall Street investors are cashing in as working families pay the price for the president's economic mismanagement," said Pancotti. "Despite his bluster, Trump has built an economy for billionaires while working families are left in the dust."
A separate report released Wednesday by Oxford Economics warned that Trump's trade war with Canada, America's largest trading partner, is likely to do further damage to the US economy unless quickly reversed.
Economist Bernard Yaros, author of the report, warned that Trump's threatened 50% tariffs on Canadian cars could be particularly painful for US consumers as its "inflationary fallout is unlikely to be benign" if implemented.
Lending apps are offering credit to consumers struggling to afford basic necessities, including electricity, broadband, groceries, and more as prices rise.
Companies that provide "buy now, pay later" loans are increasingly offering their products to Americans struggling to afford utilities and other necessities as costs rise across the US economy, with President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran pushing up energy prices while wage growth slows.
The New York Times reported Monday that "the lending apps Flex and Zip allow customers to take out loans to pay for their broadband, electricity, health insurance, mobile phone service, mortgage, and water bills," while Affirm "has started providing some tenants loans to extend their monthly rent payment for a few weeks." On the homepage of its website, Affirm is currently promoting its product for school supplies as prices for basic items surge.
Despite Trump's pledge to cut household electricity costs in half and "bring down the prices of all goods," federal data shows electricity prices are up 18% since the start of the president's second White House term. On Monday, the average price for a gallon of gas in the US reached $4.06—the highest ever recorded for mid-August.
Recent polling by Data for Progress shows that 38% of "buy now, pay later" users have turned to the product to cover gasoline costs. Nearly half—46%—have used it for groceries, 42% for medical or dental care, 39% for utility bills, and 22% for childcare.
Last month, the advocacy group Protect Borrowers released a detailed report showing that buy now, pay later lenders are "touting shiny and oftentimes deceptive offers of zero-interest, fee-free installment loans to millions of Americans struggling with the rapidly rising costs of groceries, rent, utility bills, takeout, new clothes, medical care, and more."
"Leading BNPL lenders currently include Affirm, Klarna, Afterpay, PayPal, Synchrony, Splitit, Sezzle, and Zip, but more are popping up by the day, largely funded by private equity firms and venture capitalists looking to cash in on families’ financial desperation," the report states. "BNPL loans are packed to the brim with financing fees, late fees, and other junk fees. Many BNPL loans feature late fees of $7 to $8 per missed payment, up to an aggregate cap of 25% of the purchase price. Additional fees may be charged for financing, if the user does not set a bank account as the default method of payment, reschedules an upcoming payment, or has non-sufficient funds or a bounced payment."
The Times pointed to June Federal Reserve research showing that Americans collectively spent $160 billion through buy now, pay later programs last year, nearly twice what US consumers spent in 2023.
"That’s still a fraction of the more than $3 trillion US shoppers spend annually on consumer credit cards," the Times noted. "But the industry continues to expand by double-digit rates each year."
Jennifer Zhang, a policy analyst at Protect Borrowers, has called on the US Congress to enact "sweeping protections" that "end deceptive pricing, bring down the cost of BNPL debt, ban predatory practices that harm consumers, and empower Americans to enforce their rights under the law."
"BNPL loans are expensive and risky, and often worsen financial outcomes for borrowers who come to rely on them to make ends meet. However, millions of Americans are being driven into these debt products just as they’re trying to get by. Prices are soaring and show no signs of coming down anytime soon," Zhang wrote. "Americans need help."
As inflation has wiped out wage growth, 53% of voters said they were worse off financially than when Trump took office, including nearly a quarter of Republicans.
President Donald Trump's approval rating has hit a new low as the majority of Americans—including many of his own voters—now say they are economically worse off under his second administration.
In a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday, just 33% of Americans said they approved of Trump's performance in the White House, while 64% disapproved, a drop from 35% approval earlier in the month. They're the worst marks he's received during this term and are tied with his worst ever, which came in December 2017.
Trump's nadir comes as a majority of Americans say their finances have gotten worse since he came to power. In a Financial Times poll released on Sunday, more than 53% of registered voters said they were worse off since January 2025. This includes 57% of independents, but also nearly a quarter of Republicans.
Voters' economic angst aligns with what the metrics show. After hitting a three-year peak of 4.2% in May, inflation was still higher in July than it was when Trump took office, at 3.4%. Real wages declined as hourly pay failed to keep up with inflation, and the economy shed 23,000 jobs last month.
Trump responded to this bleak report by celebrating that the economy was "doing unbelievably from the standpoint of Wall Street," with the stock market continuing to soar.
The pocketbook issues faced by many Americans have been made worse by Trump's war with Iran, which has caused oil prices to spike, triggering a surge in gasoline prices and inflation that has rippled throughout the economy.
The war began unpopular and has only grown more so as the conflict, which Trump said would be over in weeks, approaches its sixth month. In a Reuters poll released in late July, only about a third of Americans said they supported it.
After backing out of a peace agreement earlier this summer, Trump has doubled down on the war in recent weeks. Americans, regardless of party, are now overwhelmingly doubtful that it will end any time soon.
Among all adults, 4 in 5 said they believed the war would "go on for a long time." This includes 80% of independents, but also 71% of Republicans. Across all parties, just 16% said they believed the war would "end in a matter of weeks."
There are increasing signs that even Trump's core base is beginning to sour on him. An Economist/YouGov poll out last week showed that his overall approval among GOP voters had fallen to a second-term low of 79%.
Even more concerning for him is a decline in enthusiasm among supporters: Where 68% said they "strongly approve" of Trump near the start of his term, just 48% now feel that way.
Democratic voters, meanwhile, appear fired up as November approaches. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll from July showed that Democrats have a 10-point advantage over the GOP among those who say they are certain to vote.
"Today's report is yet another reminder that Trump's promise to lower costs on 'Day One' was a lie," said the House Budget Committee's top Democrat.
As Americans continue to struggle with the cost of gasoline, groceries, healthcare, housing, and more under President Donald Trump, congressional Democrats and economists on Wednesday used his own government's latest inflation figures to call out the Republican's handling of the US economy.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the consumer price index—a measure of goods and services bought by households—increased 0.1% on a seasonally adjusted basis in July after falling 0.4% in June. The annual inflation rate was 3.4% before seasonal adjustment.
The brief reprieve for American consumers in June was tied to Trump's illegal Iran War cooling off a bit, so the new numbers were expected, given the ramped-up hostilities that followed and persist. The conflict and its various consequences are expected to hurt Republicans in the November elections.
"Prices started climbing again in July, and Trump's catastrophic mismanagement of our economy means more spikes in the months ahead," warned Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, in a statement.
"The president said it himself: He is only 'semi-negotiating' an end to the war, all while slapping new tariffs on 99% of our imported goods," noted Jacquez. "Trump is not serious about bringing much-needed relief to working families who are weary of higher prices at the pump and on the shelves, and who are pessimistic about an economy that is bleeding jobs."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that "as inflation continues to spiral out of control and gas prices remain well above $4, this is how Donald Trump is spending your taxpayer dollars. $900 million for a gilded ballroom at the White House. $0 to lower your costs. The Trump White House in a nutshell."
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) recalled when Trump was asked in May how much "Americans' financial situations" were on his mind as he tried to negotiate an end to the Iran War, and the president replied, "Not even a little bit," then returned to his misleading talking points on nuclear weapons.
"Month after month, Donald Trump continues to prove that he doesn't 'think about Americans' financial situation,'" Boyle said. "Over the last year and a half, Trump and Republicans in Washington have ripped healthcare away from millions of Americans, forced families to pay expensive tariff taxes, and started a disastrous war with Iran."
"Today's report is yet another reminder that Trump's promise to lower costs on 'Day One' was a lie," the congressman added. "American families deserve better."
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) declared on social media Wednesday, "Donald Trump's economy is a disaster."
"His war is spiking gas costs. Wages are down. Inflation is up," she said, looking to the midterms. "In November, Democrats will take back the House and fight for an affordable America."
"However the White House tries to spin these numbers, their talking points ring hollow for people who are actually experiencing Trump’s weak economy."
Federal data released Friday shows the US economy shed 23,000 jobs last month, but one analyst said that figure was "only the beginning of the bad news" for the country's job market under the leadership of President Donald Trump.
"This is a bleak jobs report," said Heather Long, the chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noting that the unemployment rate fell slightly in July—but primarily because more people left the labor force—and year-over-year hourly wage growth slowed to 3.2%, not keeping up with inflation.
Breyon Williams, the Groundwork Collaborative's top economist, said in response to the new Labor Department numbers that "regardless of having a job or not, everyone is paying high prices from Trump’s chaotic tariffs and war with Iran."
"Today’s report shows a patchwork economy that is fraying at the seams," said Williams. "Trump’s economic mismanagement has injected so much uncertainty into the economy that employers are not confident enough to add more people, but also have not initiated massive layoffs, creating a frozen job market where those with jobs are afraid to leave them and those without are stuck on the sidelines."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote on social media that "Trump is tanking the US economy."
In addition to the loss of 23,000 jobs last month—far worse than forecasters' expectation of an increase of 80,000 jobs—the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revised job growth downward for both May and June. BLS said job growth in May was actually 20,000 (down from the earlier estimate of 57,000), and job growth in June was 63,000 (down from 129,000). The healthcare sector has accounted for a disproportionate share of US employment growth this year.
"This economy is running on fumes," said Angela Hanks, a former Labor Department official who now works as chief of policy programs at The Century Foundation. "However the White House tries to spin these numbers, their talking points ring hollow for people who are actually experiencing Trump’s weak economy."
White House spin efforts began almost immediately after the release of the new figures.
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, claimed during a Fox Business appearance that the dismal job numbers were a testament to the success of Trump's mass deportation campaign, even though the largest job losses in July occurred in state and local government.
"Because we have a tight border and because we've been deporting folks who aren't citizens, then that puts downward pressure on what the sort of breakeven job number is," said Hassett.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Hassett also blamed the "end of the World Cup," which "meant that a lot of hospitality workers were then laid off."
Kevin Hassett thinks Americans are very very stupid. This spin is ridiculous, transparent BS. pic.twitter.com/h0qX7c8fbI
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 7, 2026
"Is this the ‘Golden Age’ that Donald Trump and JD Vance keep talking about?" asked Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee's rapid response director, following publication of the BLS report. "Trump’s disastrous economic agenda has caused irreparable damage to the job market, as layoffs mount and it’s nearly impossible to find a job."
"Working families are already drowning under the weight of skyrocketing costs on everyday goods like groceries, gas, and healthcare, and their paychecks aren’t keeping up," said Witmer. "Americans are barely keeping their heads above water—and Trump can’t even be bothered to care."
It’s unclear how more temporary ceasefires in hostilities between the growing number of parties involved in the Iran-US war can solve problems such as the rise of gas prices and fall of spending on other commodities.
Getting a cup of complimentary coffee at my credit union recently, I glanced to the left and saw a younger woman with a mass of pennies placing them into a machine for conversion to cash. "The US Mint stopped producing pennies," I said to her. “They might be valuable.”
She quickly replied, "I need gas."
Rising gas prices are an outcome of the US war of aggression against Iran, begun five months ago. As a result, inflationary pressures are rising stateside.
One thing is plain as day. Ceasefires between Iran and the US are temporary and connect with fluctuations of oil prices, currently increasing. Rising prices of oil drive price increases at the gas pump.
The logic of military conflicts is one of unpredictable outcomes, economically and politically.
Meanwhile, this sentence in the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation report stands out like a third thumb. “The index for energy increased 15.7% over the past 12 months due in large part to the index for gasoline rising 26.7% over the same period." That spike is despite presidential announcements about how well the war against Iran is going for the US to his dual audiences of MAGA voters and capitalist investors.
Apparently, repetition of a falsification has limitations. Don’t tell the president, though.
Inflation as a result of supply disruptions as we experienced with global value chains during the pandemic is a systemic contradiction. Global economic integration, e.g., the shift of US industry abroad that increases the distances of supply chains, is no risk-free strategy to increase profits and market share for corporate America.
We see in real time that the global economy which requires oil to operate feeds the imbalance between consumption, production, and distribution of commodities such as energy. The shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea with Yemen’s entry into the Iran-US war are driving the decrease in oil production and distribution, and therefore consumption.
Under the current phase of capitalism, or neoliberalism, the government shores up the weakening buying power of the working class with direct support of the corporations and the wealthy. In the case of the Iran-US war, despite the endless American taxpayer outlays for military spending with bipartisan support, the dwindling supply of energy from the Persian Gulf that businesses and consumers rely upon is driving inflationary pressures. The rise of gas prices is proof of that. There’s more.
Spending a bigger chunk of household income on gas means that working families spend less in other areas. Take fast food spending. Consumption of fast food is down 4% in May 2026 from its peak in September 2025, according to the US Bureau of Economic Affairs.
It’s unclear how more temporary ceasefires in hostilities between the growing number of parties involved in the Iran-US war, now including Saudi Arabia and Yemen, can solve problems such as the rise of gas prices and fall of spending on other commodities in the US. The logic of military conflicts is one of unpredictable outcomes, economically and politically. Claiming to know what's next is a fool's errand.