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
inflation
Trump Promised to Lower Energy Prices for Americans. He's Done the Exact Opposite
Electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, more than twice the rate of overall inflation, and cost Americans $123 more on average.
Mar 25, 2026
President Donald Trump ran on promises to cut energy prices "in half" within his first year in office. But according to a report released Wednesday, he's done the exact opposite, and it's expected to get much worse as oil prices soar from his war with Iran.
Electricity prices increased more than twice as fast as overall inflation in 2025, according to a fact sheet by the Groundwork Collaborative.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, compared with an overall consumer price index increase of 2.7%.
In January, a report by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, found that Americans spent an extra $2,120 in 2025 due to inflation across the economy. Electricity cost the average family an additional $123.
Groundwork's report attributed these price increases to Trump's aggressive tariffs, which the group said have raised the costs of building and maintaining electric grids—costs that energy companies pass directly to consumers.
It also noted the Trump administration's support for the swift build-out of artificial intelligence data centers, which have dramatically increased energy demand in places where they've been constructed.
Costs for consumers connected to America's largest power grid, PJM, for example, increased by a collective $9.4 billion last year—more than a 180% increase. Meanwhile, Bloomberg found that in areas near data centers, wholesale electricity costs had jumped by as much as 267% over the past five years.
That pinch is being felt by consumers, 66% of whom said their electricity bills increased over the past year, compared with just 5% who said they decreased, according to a poll earlier this month from Data for Progress.
Groundwork found that "rising energy prices hit working families the hardest," with those earning under $50,000 spending nearly 7% of their annual income on energy, compared with just 1.2% for those earning above $150,000, according to a 2025 report from the Bank of America Institute.
Rising costs have been a growing source of anger among voters who elected Trump to bring them down, but now give him just a 29% approval rating on the economy, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
It's a historic low that Trump hit for the first time this month as gas prices in the US have soared to an average of $3.98 per gallon as a result of oil price hikes caused by Trump's war with Iran, which resulted in Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.
Groundwork noted that the pain of the war goes far beyond the pump: The price of residential heating oil is already up 35% since the war began. Meanwhile, rising diesel costs for trucks and disruptions to the global shipment of fertilizer are expected to jack up food prices.
Short of ending the war altogether, the group pointed out that Trump has options to reduce energy costs by tapping into increasingly cheap and abundant wind and solar energy.
Instead, however, the president has delayed hundreds of solar projects by introducing new review requirements that have slowed construction and backed lawsuits to gut efficiency standards.
Earlier this month, at the Trump administration's urging, a federal judge sided with 15 red states to strike down Biden administration energy standards, which were estimated to reduce costs by more than $950 per year for families living in federally funded housing.
While Trump has taken actions aimed at curbing the global fuel shock, including tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pausing the federal gas tax, a poll from Groundwork and Data for Progress this week found that more than half of Americans, 52%, would prefer to simply see the war end rather than these emergency measures.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How the Iran War Could Lead to a Crash Worse Than 2008
It’s too late to prevent the inflation of an AI bubble or to advise against a US attack on Tehran. At this point, the most we can do is to hope for a quick end to the war and for some improvisational brilliance among the world’s leaders of government and finance.
Mar 21, 2026
Several commentators have remarked that the United States’ war on Iran carries echoes of 2008. I’ll argue here that a potential financial crash this year could actually be much worse.
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 was the biggest economic crunch since the Great Depression. Unemployment surged, topping 10% in the US. Global stocks lost trillions of dollars in value. Major brokerage houses collapsed. The US auto industry only survived thanks to enormous government bailouts. How could another crash top that?
Consider the causes. The 2008 Great Recession resulted from a confluence of three factors:
- Failed US wars in the Middle East, in that instance against Iraq and Afghanistan. Many economists argue the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars contributed to the GFC by fueling massive American budget deficits and worsening trade imbalances, and by creating a “capital flow bonanza” that triggered the US credit boom. While not the sole cause, the war compounded the vulnerability of the US economy.
- Soaring oil prices, following the plateauing of world conventional oil production in 2005. Oil demand continued to rise but the global supply of oil did not follow suit. On July 11, 2008, crude prices hit $147 per barrel, their all-time high. Since the economy runs on energy and oil is the world’s most important energy source, oil prices have a way of impacting all industries. Financial markets crashed three months after the oil-price peak.
- A bursting financial bubble inflated by subprime mortgages in the US and financial derivatives traded worldwide. The mortgage bubble involved $1.3 trillion to $1.5 trillion in high-risk loans issued during the 2000-2006 housing boom. It was a house of cards waiting to tumble.
The resulting unwinding of debt and derivatives came within a hair’s breadth of turning into a massive bank run and general economic collapse. Governments (led by the US) bailed out industries and banks, lowered interest rates to zero, purchased large tranches of financial securities, and instituted enormous fiscal stimulus programs and tax cuts. Even with these rapid and maximum-scale efforts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, the GFC led to widespread housing foreclosures, a near-40% downturn in the S&P 500, and a substantial increase in the poverty rate.
Now consider the following:
- Today’s AI financial bubble is four times bigger than the subprime mortgage bubble of 2008 and 17 times bigger than the dot-com bubble of 2000.
- The Iran war, though so far not involving US ground troops, could possibly end up being more problematic than the Iraq invasion of 2003, if only from the standpoint of flows of energy and international trade. The war is likely to result in real oil shortages and prices potentially even higher than those seen in 2008. Additionally, more of the Middle East is now involved in hostilities, and oil and gas production and shipment infrastructure is being damaged or destroyed, thereby undermining the long-term economic prospects of the region, as well as destabilizing its politics. No one knows how this will end.
- For the US economy, warning signs were already flashing before the war: Stubbornly high inflation, a bad jobs picture, and worsening consumer sentiment were indicators of a looming recession.
- The final factor can be stated as a question: Would today’s US Treasury head be as successful at averting financial doom as was Henry Paulson in 2008? Then, the US was able to enlist government and business leaders from the world’s key countries in cooperating to fashion a collective survival strategy. Would current US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have similar success, given the recent global collapse of trust in US leadership?
In view of the possibly catastrophic consequences of the attack on Iran, many people wonder what motives could have justified it. Logan McMillen argues in Foreign Policy in Focus that the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” intends to freeze China out of the Western Hemisphere and to deprive it of cheap energy:
The strategy is entirely zero-sum. By turning the Middle East and the Caribbean into militarized chokepoints, the United States is suffocating China’s independent oil supply lines, starving its industrial capacity while guaranteeing temporary windfall profits for Western supermajors. Concurrently, from the lithium flats of Bolivia to the ports of Peru, Washington is deploying right-wing proxies and military coercion to systematically dispossess Chinese capital in Latin America, re-colonizing the Andes to secure the supply chains of the 21st century.
Other commentators see the war as being spearheaded by members of the Christian Zionist movement, which desires a fulfillment of biblical prophecies of the battle of Armageddon and the return of Jesus.
Even if McMillen’s analysis is sound and there is an arguably rational motive behind the war, that doesn’t mean the campaign will go according to plan or that it will achieve its aims. Many analysts see it already careening off the rails.
It’s too late to prevent the inflation of an AI bubble or to advise against a US attack on Tehran. At this point, the most we can do is to hope for a quick end to the war and for some improvisational brilliance among the world’s leaders of government and finance.
Meanwhile, it would be smart to make whatever preparations you can. For folks in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s time to start planning this spring’s food garden. You might want to plant a few more rows of beans than you do most years, so you have enough to share with neighbors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Israel’s War on Iran Once Again Exposes the Folly of Fossil Fuel Dependence
The world’s leaders should not only condemn US and Israeli aggression that has thrown the global economy into a tailspin but also take action to insulate their economies from this relentless cycle of fossil-fueled violence, volatility, and instability
Mar 19, 2026
As the US and Israeli war on Iran continues into its third week, the human, economic, and ecological impacts are devastating. Some 3,000 Iranians have been killed, including 165 children in one school strike, 10,000 injured, and 3.2 million displaced.
The war has caused a crisis. The World Health Organization has warned that with many oil storage tanks hit, resulting in “black rain” falling on Tehran, there is "danger for the population." The debris contains toxins that can cause respiratory and neurological damage, as well as certain kinds of cancer. For US consumers, who were promised that President Donald Trump would stop foreign conflict, the war is costing more than $890 million a day in direct costs, before we factor in the rising costs of energy. This is money that could be spent on education and healthcare.
The war has also brought chaos to global oil markets. Middle East producers have cut oil production by at least 10 million barrels per day, sending oil prices soaring. With no end to the conflict in sight, oil markets remain jittery and volatile.
Spikes in the price of oil affect billions of working people worldwide. They are forced to pay more to fill up their tanks, heat their homes, and even purchase food, since fertilizer is often made from fossil fuels. Rising energy prices can also cause knock-on inflation in the price of other consumer goods.
It is nonsensical that the global economy is so dependent on a 21-mile strait of water staying open to tanker traffic.
On Tuesday, the price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was close to $104, up almost 50% from before the conflict started. By Thursday, after strikes on Gulf oil and gas infrastructure, oil was $119 a barrel and gas jumped 30%, with industry insiders calling it an “Armageddon scenario.” “The world does not need $120 oil,” said Steven Pruett, chief executive of one Texas-based oil producer, Elevation Resources. “It’s going to cause economic destruction.”
Last week, the global energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, said that oil markets are suffering “the largest supply disruption in history.” The boss of Saudi Aramco, Amin Nasser, has warned of “catastrophic consequences” for the world economy if the US-Iran war drags on.
The problem lies with the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. A quarter of the world’s oil—some 20 million barrels a day—passes through the Strait, which is only 21 miles wide at one point. And now, in retaliation for the US and Israeli aggression, Iran has effectively stopped traffic through the Strait by bombing tankers.
For decades, academics and the oil industry have warned that war in Iran could cut off the Strait in times of conflict. The industry has long feared what would happen if the Strait were to close. Chevron boss Mike Wirth recently said: “We do crisis management exercises… the big one has always been something in the Middle East that shuts the Strait of Hormuz… Markets are very uncomfortable, uncertain, volatile, and unpredictable.”
It has become increasingly apparent that Trump had no plan for dealing with the Strait’s closure after pleading earlier this week with European allies to help keep it open. In a scathing editorial, the New York Times wrote: “President Trump went to war against Iran without explaining his strategy to the American people or the world. It now appears that he may not have had much of a strategy at all.”
It added that he also “failed to plan for a predictable side effect of a war in the Middle East: a disruption of oil supplies that causes a price spike and impairs the global economy.”
The evidence bears this out. The threat of closing the Strait remained unseen by the Trump administration, bloodthirsty for regime change and blinkered by the ease of removing President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.
Before the strikes on Iran, Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright had told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in the markets. Since the crisis began, Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have appeared “flummoxed” by the surge in prices, according to Politico. One industry official has called Burgum the “Where’s Waldo” of the crisis. Both men have been scrambling, but failing, “to head off a bout of energy-driven inflation.”
After a closed-door briefing to lawmakers last week, one Democratic Senator, Chris Murphy, said on social media that the administration had no plan for the Strait of Hormuz and did “not know how to get it safely back open.”
It's not all bad news for the oil industry, though.
Oil companies are set to make obscene profits. Oil Change researchers recently calculated that if oil prices rise just $20 a barrel, US producers will rake in $280 million in extra revenue every day. That’s over $100 billion a year. Shares in the six oil majors, BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies, have soared by more than $130 billion in the first two weeks of the war.
This isn’t the first time global oil markets have been thrown into upheaval by war, and by looking to the past, we can see the dangers and possibilities created by oil shocks. In 2022, oil companies were able to use the invasion of Ukraine to increase their already massive profits.
For long-term economic security and stability, as well as a future safe from climate disasters, there needs to be a radical shift to renewables.
The five Big Oil companies—BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies—reported combined profits of $196.3 billion the following year, more than the economic output of most countries. Working people around the world, as well as our climate, paid the price for Big Oil’s greed. For example, the war cost Canadians $200 billion over the next three years due to inflation spikes.
After the Ukraine war, Pakistan prioritized renewables. Energy analysts in the country believe that solar expansion has helped insulate the power sector from the spiraling energy costs.
“While we’re certainly seeing some impacts, the expansion of distributed solar in the country has provided a cushioning effect against the impacts [of the energy crisis]” Nabiya Imran, an associate at Renewables First, a Pakistani think tank, told The Guardian.
The world’s reaction to the 1973 oil crisis shows that a different path is possible. After oil prices quadrupled, there was significant investment in renewables and energy efficiency. Back then, the US government worked on a program to promote wind turbines and energy efficiency, which would be antithetical to the Trump administration.
Indeed, the madness of Trump’s current war on renewables is such that the administration is reportedly planning to pay nearly $1 billion to French energy company TotalEnergies to stop further offshore wind development.
Despite this, the chaos in the energy markets has led to renewed calls to get off oil and decarbonize. In the UK, The Guardian editorial board argued: “After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe swapped Russian pipeline gas for American LNG [liquefied natural gas]. Dependency didn’t disappear. Britain just changed suppliers. That is one reason among many why this crisis must see the government focus like a laser on faster decarbonisation, not more drilling.”
US tech corporation Microsoft, which donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, has also said the war strengthens the case for investment in clean energy sources and battery storage. “Wind and solar as, as part of that mix, is a huge benefit from the standpoint of price stability, because once you install it, you have more certainty around what that actual cost profile looks like,” the company told the Financial Times.
It is nonsensical that the global economy is so dependent on a 21-mile strait of water staying open to tanker traffic. It is nonsensical that oil prices are so volatile that they whipsaw on a tweet from Trump or even a misleading one from US Energy Secretary Chris Wright claiming the US military had successfully shepherded a tanker through the Strait. And it is deeply unjust that this volatility affects the household bills for billions of people.
As some pundits have pointed out, even if Trump declares victory, it is now up to Iran when they will allow the Strait to reopen. It can close it at any time in the future. Iran has the means to hold much of the global economy to ransom.
So, for long-term economic security and stability, as well as a future safe from climate disasters, there needs to be a radical shift to renewables. Leading pundits agree:
There is evidence that the war in Iran is beginning to cause the same shift in thinking that the 1973 oil crisis did. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said this week that it was time to prepare major measures to conserve energy as the situation deteriorates. These include promoting energy conservation and “rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”
It's also worth remembering that the US military is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases of any institution on Earth and the US is the largest producer of oil and gas globally. The military uses much of that might to defend US interests in fossil fuels.
The world’s leaders should not only condemn US and Israeli aggression that has once again thrown the global economy into a tailspin but also take action to insulate their economies from this relentless cycle of fossil-fueled violence, volatility, and instability. Moving away from fossil fuels does not guarantee world peace. We are already seeing conflicts over the rare earth minerals needed for solar and other green technologies in places like the Congo.
But it can insulate working people from the shocks triggered by the reckless aggression of powerful nations that consider themselves adequately protected from the consequences of their actions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular