President Trump is seriously considering a diesel export ban as record prices hit farmers and truckers, analysts warn any relief would be temporary.
President Donald Trump confirmed last week that the White House is giving serious thought to banning diesel exports, pointing to fuel costs that have climbed into record territory and now weigh on voters ahead of the November midterms.
Speaking to a Fox News reporter while attending the Presidents Cup golf tournament in Illinois, Trump said the administration is studying the move carefully and may act. High diesel prices are squeezing Iowa farmers, long-haul truckers, and delivery fleets at the same time global refining capacity has taken heavy hits from overseas conflicts.
Just the News reported that average U.S. diesel prices fell this week from $6.52 a gallon to $6.41 on Thursday, still far above the $3.71 level recorded a year earlier by AAA. Over the past month, 16 trucking, delivery, and transportation companies entered bankruptcy proceedings.
Republican lawmakers from farm country are pushing the White House and Congress to move.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa urged the administration to reject industry claims that an export curb would fail. He argued domestic users should not carry sky-high prices while barrels leave the country.
Grassley posted 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,"
Rep. Ashley Hinson, also of Iowa, called on the House to return to Washington and pass a “pause” on diesel exports along with other steps aimed at lowering fuel costs.
Hinson said:
"Americans need relief and I’ll work with anyone to deliver,"
Trump framed the option in practical terms and flagged a trade-off the White House is watching. He told the Fox News reporter:
"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,"
The price spike did not arrive in a vacuum. Conflicts abroad have knocked large volumes of refining capacity offline and tightened distillate markets that set what Americans pay.
Ukraine stepped up drone strikes on Russian refineries, hitting a facility once every three days on average through the first eight months of this year. By September, half of Russia’s six largest diesel refineries had cut or halted production. Russia itself banned exports in July.
In the Middle East, the damage has been larger still. Industry monitor IIR estimated in March that nearly 1.9 million barrels a day of crude refining capacity in the Persian Gulf had shut down amid the war in Iran. By May, that figure had climbed to an estimated 3.52 million barrels a day.
At home, stockpiles offer little cushion. U.S. distillate stocks sit at the lowest level for this time of year in Energy Information Administration records going back to 1982. The usual summer rebuild never came.
The Institute for Energy Research says the main drivers of today’s fuel costs are the conflicts in Russia and the Middle East plus the drawdown of stockpiles. U.S. refineries have already been running near 95% for months, leaving limited spare capacity to fill the gap by simply turning more crude into diesel.
Energy analysts warn that keeping diesel inside U.S. borders would rearrange supply rather than grow it, and that any regional break could fade quickly or reverse in import-dependent markets.
The Institute for Energy Research put the core problem this way:
"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,"
IER’s recommended path runs through more supply and freer movement, not a wall around U.S. barrels. The group argued:
"Until peace comes, policymakers should focus on adding supply and moving it to where it is needed: keeping U.S. refineries running, and waiving the Jones Act so Gulf Coast diesel can reach the East Coast by ship."
The Jones Act is the 1920 federal law that requires goods shipped by water between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built, owned, and crewed by Americans. Critics of an export ban without related waivers say that rule can block cheap Gulf Coast diesel from reaching East Coast terminals by sea, forcing longer and costlier routes.
Two 2022 analyses still frame the debate over who gains and who pays.
A July 2022 study from the American Council for Capital Formation estimated that an export ban without Jones Act waivers would shutter roughly 1.3 million barrels per day of refining capacity. It projected East Coast, West Coast, and Rocky Mountain distillate prices would rise 45 to 51 cents a gallon in the second half of 2022, with a $44 billion hit to 2023 GDP.
A separate 2022 McKinsey report found an export ban could lower Gulf Coast and Midwest prices by about 20 to 25 cents a gallon while lifting international prices by roughly 60 cents a gallon. Because some U.S. regions rely on imports and face shipping constraints, those areas could see higher prices even if inland markets catch a short break.
That pattern matters for a national decision. Midwest farmers and truckers may see temporary relief if more diesel stays inland. Coastal drivers and shippers could face the opposite result if world prices jump and Jones Act limits keep Gulf barrels from moving freely by water.
Beyond the next few months, the open question is whether private capital would keep building and maintaining U.S. refining if Washington treats export access as a political switch.
Energy analyst David Blackmon, who notes on the “Energy Additions” Substack, argued that a ban sold as short-term politics would chill the very investment needed to process more American crude at home.
Blackmon wrote:
"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,"
He added:
"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."
Refineries plan maintenance turnarounds and multi-year capital projects on stable rules. Sudden limits on where diesel can be sold raise the risk that plants throttle runs, delay upgrades, or idle units if domestic inventories stack up and margins collapse. That is the path the ACCF study tied to lost capacity and weaker GDP.
Trump has not announced a final decision, a draft order, or a firm date. He has said the White House is looking at the idea “very seriously” and that gasoline could tick higher if diesel is held back. That candor puts the trade-off on the table instead of papering over it.
Grassley wants the administration to treat diesel the way policymakers have treated other strategic goods when foreign buyers outbid American users. Hinson wants the House back in session to vote on a pause and related fuel measures. Both are answering the same pressure: farmers filling harvest tanks and truckers covering long routes at more than $6 a gallon.
Global facts still bind any U.S. move. Russian and Persian Gulf refining losses removed millions of barrels a day from world markets. U.S. distillate stocks are historically thin. Domestic plants are already running hard. An export ban can redirect barrels toward Chicago and the Midwest. It cannot restore a Russian unit hit by drones or a Gulf plant taken offline by war.
IER’s counsel remains blunt: end the overseas disruptions where possible, keep American refineries online, and clear shipping bottlenecks so Gulf diesel can reach the coasts. Those steps add usable supply. A pure export curb mainly rearranges it.
Americans who plant, haul, and deliver the country’s goods need cheaper diesel. The test for any White House plan is whether it grows real supply and protects refining investment, or only shuffles scarce barrels until the next price spike returns.
