President Trump is seriously considering a diesel export ban to ease record fuel costs weighing on voters before the midterms, though energy analysts warn any drop would be temporary and could chill new refining investment.

President Donald Trump confirmed last week that the White House is giving the idea close study, speaking to a Fox News reporter while attending the Presidents Cup golf tournament in Illinois. Just the News reported his direct assessment of the option.

“We’re thinking about it very seriously. That can oftentimes lead to a little bit of an increase on gasoline for cars, so we’re looking at it very seriously. We may do it,” Trump said.

“We’re thinking about it very seriously. That can oftentimes lead to a little bit of an increase on gasoline for cars, so we’re looking at it very seriously. We may do it,”

Average U.S. diesel prices sat at $6.41 a gallon on Thursday after slipping from $6.52 earlier in the week. A year ago the same gallon cost $3.71, AAA figures show. Those levels remain at record highs and have already forced 16 trucking, delivery, and transportation companies into bankruptcy proceedings over the past month.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Ashley Hinson have pressed hard for action, arguing farmers and truckers cannot keep absorbing the hit. Grassley posted that Big Oil should cut domestic diesel prices and recover revenue from foreign buyers, drawing a parallel to chip export controls.

“Big Oil doesnt need 2 charge sky-high diesel prices 4 Iowa farmers + truckers just filling up They shld cut price 4 US diesel&get the $$ frm other countries IF U CAN EMBARGO CHIPS U CAN EMBARGO DIESEL,” Grassley wrote on X.

“Big Oil doesnt need 2 charge sky-high diesel prices 4 Iowa farmers + truckers just filling up They shld cut price 4 US diesel&get the $$ frm other countries IF U CAN EMBARGO CHIPS U CAN EMBARGO DIESEL,”

Hinson called on the House to return to Washington and pass a pause on diesel exports among other relief steps. “Americans need relief and I’ll work with anyone to deliver,” she said.

Global conflicts, not U.S. exports, drive the squeeze

The Institute for Energy Research points to drone strikes on Russian refineries and hostilities across the Middle East as the core drivers. Ukraine has hit a Russian refinery once every three days on average through the first eight months of the year. Half of Russia’s six largest diesel refineries cut or halted production in September after Moscow banned its own exports in July.

In the Persian Gulf, industry monitor IIR estimated nearly 1.9 million barrels a day of crude refining capacity offline by March amid the Iran conflict; by May the figure had climbed to 3.52 million barrels a day. U.S. distillate stocks sit at their lowest level for this time of year in Energy Information Administration records going back to 1982, and the usual summer build never materialized. American refineries have already run near 95 percent for months.

That global shortfall is why the administration has also leaned on European partners. The New York Post reported that Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials warned Germany and France a U.S. export curb remained on the table unless they released emergency diesel stocks. Washington sought roughly 120 million barrels over six months, about one-third of EU reserves.

A Trump administration official told the paper, “It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers.” One European contact described the ask as hypothetical but pointed: release reserves to ease prices and reduce talk of an American ban.

Those talks produced results. Breitbart reported that G7 nations agreed to a coordinated release of 100 million barrels of oil over four months, including a front-loaded substantial diesel release in the first 20 days. Trump announced the diesel portion would begin immediately after calls with French President Macron and a G7 leaders’ videoconference, at a moment when U.S. prices had just peaked near $6.52.

The G7 statement read: “We will implement our commitments with a coordinated release through the IEA of 100 million barrels (MB) to begin immediately over 4 months, including a front-loaded substantial diesel release within the first 20 days by G7 members and partners.”

Studies flag temporary Midwest relief and lasting costs elsewhere

Even a full U.S. export ban would not create new barrels. A 2022 McKinsey report estimated it could shave 20 to 25 cents a gallon off Gulf Coast and Midwest prices while lifting international prices by roughly 60 cents a gallon. Import-dependent East and West Coast markets would still face higher costs because of limited shipping options under the Jones Act, the 1920 law requiring domestic vessels for coastwise cargo.

The American Council for Capital Formation’s July 2022 study went further. Without Jones Act waivers, an export ban could force the shuttering of roughly 1.3 million barrels per day of refining capacity, raise East Coast, West Coast, and Rocky Mountain distillate prices 45 to 51 cents a gallon in the second half of that year, and cut 2023 GDP by $44 billion.

Institute for Energy Research analysts put the problem plainly: an export ban simply relocates barrels already in the system.

“An export ban does not add a single barrel of diesel to the world market. It moves barrels from Rotterdam and Lima to Chicago, and it raises the world price that sets what Americans pay on the East and West Coasts,”

Their prescription is straightforward: keep U.S. refineries running and waive the Jones Act so Gulf Coast diesel can reach the East Coast by ship until global conflicts ease.

Energy analyst David Blackmon, who creates the Energy Additions Substack, warned that any politically timed ban would answer a larger investment question in the wrong direction. New domestic refining capacity is already hard to finance.

“A big question remains whether American investors will have the confidence to step up and invest in the series of new refining operations needed to keep more of America’s domestic production at home. Any ban on exports for any length of time implemented for transparently political reasons would almost certainly answer that question in the negative. America cannot afford for that to happen.”

Trump has moved on multiple fronts to ease household costs, from direct payments to Medicare enrollees to public pressure on energy markets. The diesel debate fits the same pattern of targeting visible prices before November.

Refineries already operating near full tilt have little spare capacity left to fill any sudden domestic mandate. Maintenance turnarounds that operators might otherwise delay could accelerate if export markets disappear, removing still more barrels from the system.

That same regional instability has prompted other defensive steps, including additional Patriot batteries guarding Saudi and Qatari energy sites while broader Iran options remain under review.

Grassley and Hinson continue to frame the choice as simple fairness for Iowa producers and haulers who have no alternative to diesel. Their pressure keeps the White House option alive even as the G7 release begins to add barrels overseas.

Trump has also used high-profile personnel moves and economic updates to project steady management, whether naming a new White House AI czar or highlighting strong financial indicators against media resistance.

Any final decision on diesel will turn on whether short-term political relief outweighs the risk of scaring off the very capital needed for long-term domestic supply. The studies and analysts already on record leave little doubt about the trade-off.

Farmers, truckers, and working families deserve lower costs that stick. Temporary political fixes that punish investment only guarantee the next spike arrives sooner.